It really is happening: ATF imposing new laws [Archive] - Glock Talk

PDA

View Full Version : It really is happening: ATF imposing new laws


nelsone
07-12-2011, 00:41
Well folks, my paranoid brethren, it appears you really were right: "Fast and Furious" truly does appear to have been all about creating a pretense for registering and controlling legal gun purchases inside the US.

http://news.yahoo.com/atf-require-gun-buyer-information-border-213420855.html

Now I'm no conspiracy type, and I dismissed out of hand all the talk about the "real reason" behind Operation Gunwalker. But I can't deny the information provided in this story:

In an effort to stem the illicit flow of weapons into Mexico, the Justice Department announced Monday that all gun shops in four Southwest border states will be required to alert the federal government to frequent buyers of high-powered rifles.

Under the new policy, federal firearms licensees in Texas, California, Arizona and New Mexico must report purchases of two or more of some types of rifles by the same person in a five-day span. The requirement applies to purchases of semi-automatic rifles that have detachable magazines and a caliber of greater than .22.

The Obama administration is restricting the gun rights of border state citizens, "when the administration knowingly and intentionally allowed guns to be trafficked into Mexico," said House Judiciary Committee Chairman Lamar Smith, R-Texas.

So there you have it - first the ATF targets four states, a few weapons types, and multiple buys. Maybe we should start a pool about when the next step up the ratchet arrives, and which guns, states, and buyers will be targeted. For our safety and security, of course!

Gunnut 45/454
07-12-2011, 08:42
nelsone

From what I've seen the BATF is the largest supplier of illegal guns to the Cartels!! Along with assesory to murder!:steamed:

FearTheBoomAndBust
07-18-2011, 18:40
So since the BATFE is simply requiring FFL's to submit names of those engaging in suspicious purchases so the BATFE can catalog them in a inter-agency database your going to lose your rights to buy a firearm legally, this new policy in no way limits that ability.

As for the title of this thread, the BATFE simply enforces the United States Code, and as an executive agency works to enforce actions of the United States Executive Office, the Presidency. The BATFE does not and cannot unilaterally create and or impose new laws.

What you imagine the BATFE is going to do when it "ratchets up" the restrictions cannot be done by the BATFE or the USDOJ alone.

And finally:
Well folks, my paranoid brethren, it appears you really were right: "Fast and Furious" truly does appear to have been all about creating a pretense for registering and controlling legal gun purchases inside the US.

The BATFE simply does not want to do that (I can confidently state that) and is not attempting to create a pretense for it. I can personally assure you that 90%+ of BATFE employees, specifically the Special Agents and people in "management" love and support the 2nd amendment and the legal ownership of firearms as much if not more then you personally do.

I truly apologize if at any point I sounded condescending or rambling, if there is anything else you wish to discuss on this topic just respond. There is a lot of misconceptions about the majority of what the BATFE does and stands for.

As always, stay safe :supergrin:

dogchild
07-18-2011, 19:09
Well folks, my paranoid brethren, it appears you really were right: "Fast and Furious" truly does appear to have been all about creating a pretense for registering and controlling legal gun purchases inside the US.

http://news.yahoo.com/atf-require-gun-buyer-information-border-213420855.html

Now I'm no conspiracy type, and I dismissed out of hand all the talk about the "real reason" behind Operation Gunwalker. But I can't deny the information provided in this story:



So there you have it - first the ATF targets four states, a few weapons types, and multiple buys. Maybe we should start a pool about when the next step up the ratchet arrives, and which guns, states, and buyers will be targeted. For our safety and security, of course!

This link should take you to an update
http://www.ammoland.com/2011/07/14/amendment-to-defund-obamas-illegal-firearm-sales-reporting-requirement/

FearTheBoomAndBust
07-18-2011, 19:14
The amendment is moot, the Senate did not pass it in there version. I also don't envision it realistically passing the Senate if, most likely when, it is brought back up.

Jerry
07-18-2011, 19:23
So since the BATFE is simply requiring FFL's to submit names of those engaging in suspicious purchases so the BATFE can catalog them in a inter-agency database your going to lose your rights to buy a firearm legally, this new policy in no way limits that ability.

As for the title of this thread, the BATFE simply enforces the United States Code, and as an executive agency works to enforce actions of the United States Executive Office, the Presidency. The BATFE does not and cannot unilaterally create and or impose new laws.

What you imagine the BATFE is going to do when it "ratchets up" the restrictions cannot be done by the BATFE or the USDOJ alone.

And finally:


The BATFE simply does not want to do that (I can confidently state that) and is not attempting to create a pretense for it. I can personally assure you that 90%+ of BATFE employees, specifically the Special Agents and people in "management" love and support the 2nd amendment and the legal ownership of firearms as much if not more then you personally do.

I truly apologize if at any point I sounded condescending or rambling, if there is anything else you wish to discuss on this topic just respond. There is a lot of misconceptions about the majority of what the BATFE does and stands for.

As always, stay safe :supergrin:



:laughabove: :rofl: :director: The ATF is the worst most rouge agency of the federal government and should be done away with. Next you’ll tell me they didn’t sell guns to the Mexican cartels that were used to kill federal agents. BATF&E makes up the rules as the go along. :honkie:

FearTheBoomAndBust
07-18-2011, 19:38
The ATF is the worst most rouge agency of the federal government and should be done away with. Next you’ll tell me they didn’t sell guns to the Mexican cartels that were used to kill federal agents. BATF&E makes up the rules as the go along. :honkie:

Actually the honor of "Most Rouge" agency goes to the CIA or NSA (The CIA for the actions of the Special Activities Division and the NSA for satellite signal interception), but thats another argument.

The BATFE has specific protocols and rules that must be followed, mostly protecting the US Constitution, which includes the 2nd amendment as much as you may not wish to recognize that.

Yes the BATFE has made mistakes, yes lives unfortunately were lost which is a national tragedy.

IF you think honestly that the BATFE should be abolished for that we as a nation better abolish most of the US governments agencies.
Lets see here
No more:
CIA - They hired and protected a brutal Nazi war criminal, the "Butcher of Lyon" to kill Che. Among many many other actions of ill repute...and Iran-Contra anyone?

NSA - Warrant-less Wiretapping.

Military - Lets count the mistakes they have made that have cost lives....plus I mean Ollie North.

Congress - Selling weapons to Afghanistan so they could fight a proxy war against the Soviets.

Presidency - Weapons sales as well I feel like a broken record with Iran-Contra.

FBI - I'm sure people freaked out about AFIS/COTIS when it started


So it looks like we are left with a few agencies and the Judicial Branch

Jerry
07-18-2011, 21:30
Actually the honor of "Most Rouge" agency goes to the CIA or NSA (The CIA for the actions of the Special Activities Division and the NSA for satellite signal interception), but thats another argument.

The BATFE has specific protocols and rules that must be followed, mostly protecting the US Constitution, which includes the 2nd amendment as much as you may not wish to recognize that.

Yes the BATFE has made mistakes, yes lives unfortunately were lost which is a national tragedy.

IF you think honestly that the BATFE should be abolished for that we as a nation better abolish most of the US governments agencies.
Lets see here
No more:
CIA - They hired and protected a brutal Nazi war criminal, the "Butcher of Lyon" to kill Che. Among many many other actions of ill repute...and Iran-Contra anyone?

NSA - Warrant-less Wiretapping.

Military - Lets count the mistakes they have made that have cost lives....plus I mean Ollie North.

Congress - Selling weapons to Afghanistan so they could fight a proxy war against the Soviets.

Presidency - Weapons sales as well I feel like a broken record with Iran-Contra.

FBI - I'm sure people freaked out about AFIS/COTIS when it started


So it looks like we are left with a few agencies and the Judicial Branch

Please show me evidence where any of the agencies you mention maliciously prosecuted or deliberately killed US citizens for something that was beyond their control. Hereís just one ATF has done recently. .. http://glocktalk.com/forums/showthread.php?t=810186 ATF is also responsible for the massacre at Waco and Ruby Ridge. Have any of those other agencies attacked and killed INNOCENT American Citizens, INCLUDING CHILDREN, in their own home? I believe not!

Should the CIA be dismantled? No! The FBI? No! They ARE necessary. Have they made mistakes? Yes? Has the military made mistakes? Yes? But they are/were just that, mistakes. The BATF&E isnít making mistakes they are doing what they do deliberately.

Mister_Beefy
07-18-2011, 22:22
Actually the honor of "Most Rouge" agency goes to the CIA or NSA (The CIA for the actions of the Special Activities Division and the NSA for satellite signal interception), but thats another argument.

The BATFE has specific protocols and rules that must be followed, mostly protecting the US Constitution, which includes the 2nd amendment as much as you may not wish to recognize that.

Yes the BATFE has made mistakes, yes lives unfortunately were lost which is a national tragedy.

IF you think honestly that the BATFE should be abolished for that we as a nation better abolish most of the US governments agencies.
Lets see here
No more:
CIA - They hired and protected a brutal Nazi war criminal, the "Butcher of Lyon" to kill Che. Among many many other actions of ill repute...and Iran-Contra anyone?

NSA - Warrant-less Wiretapping.

Military - Lets count the mistakes they have made that have cost lives....plus I mean Ollie North.

Congress - Selling weapons to Afghanistan so they could fight a proxy war against the Soviets.

Presidency - Weapons sales as well I feel like a broken record with Iran-Contra.

FBI - I'm sure people freaked out about AFIS/COTIS when it started


So it looks like we are left with a few agencies and the Judicial Branch

heh, you're pretty opposed to the idea of shutting down the BATFE. so what manner of cushy government job do you have?

you'd be singing a different tune if those fast and furious guns had been used to kill american LEOs.


oh wait, they were!


Brian A. Terry
http://www.odmp.org/officer/20596-border-patrol-agent-brian-a-terry

oh, but he was a fed...... not a patrol cop or state trooper. is that the reason?

and don't worry, I think we should shut down most all federal departments.

use tax dollars to build roads, explore the solar system, and kill our enemies.

let the guys in the BATFE go be security guards, and the FBI be lawyers and accountants.

PAPACHUCK
07-19-2011, 03:31
So since the BATFE is simply requiring FFL's to submit names of those engaging in suspicious purchases so the BATFE can catalog them in a inter-agency database your going to lose your rights to buy a firearm legally, this new policy in no way limits that ability.

As for the title of this thread, the BATFE simply enforces the United States Code, and as an executive agency works to enforce actions of the United States Executive Office, the Presidency. The BATFE does not and cannot unilaterally create and or impose new laws.

What you imagine the BATFE is going to do when it "ratchets up" the restrictions cannot be done by the BATFE or the USDOJ alone.

And finally:


The BATFE simply does not want to do that (I can confidently state that) and is not attempting to create a pretense for it. I can personally assure you that 90%+ of BATFE employees, specifically the Special Agents and people in "management" love and support the 2nd amendment and the legal ownership of firearms as much if not more then you personally do.
I truly apologize if at any point I sounded condescending or rambling, if there is anything else you wish to discuss on this topic just respond. There is a lot of misconceptions about the majority of what the BATFE does and stands for.

As always, stay safe :supergrin:


That should be 100%. The 10% that does not respect our rights should be terminated immediately. We don't worry about the .gov agents that are on our side, it's the ones who aren't, and unfortunately, those are who is running the show.

You are guilty by association. You need to clean your own house.

FearTheBoomAndBust
07-19-2011, 08:05
That should be 100%. The 10% that does not respect our rights should be terminated immediately. We don't worry about the .gov agents that are on our side, it's the ones who aren't, and unfortunately, those are who is running the show.

You are guilty by association. You need to clean your own house.

I'm not even honestly sure that the percentage is 10% (I would venture to say that it is much much lower). I only said 10% because I'm sure there is one example of it and I didn't want that to be brought up if I said 100%.

In my years with the BATFE I only ever met/observed one person who was a little "out there" and he was just a civilian lab assistant.

I agree that they should clean house but that is simply logistically impossible.
Also everyone in charge (minus a few political appointees, who aren't.....the best leaders...) is highly respectful of a citizens right to bear arms as long as it is legally.

so what manner of cushy government job do you have?

I am a former Special Agent for the Bureau of Alcohol Tobacco Firearms and Explosives, I specialized in explosives and chemical identification. Don't worry, I grew up around firearms I love the 2nd amendment as much as all of you, and I wasn't alone at the BATFE with that outlook.

If you read my signature your should be able to figure out my current agency (Still a Special Agent), not that I don't want to tell you I just want to see if you figure out the hints :cool: .

Should the CIA be dismantled? No! The FBI? No! They ARE necessary. Have they made mistakes? Yes? Has the military made mistakes? Yes? But they are/were just that, mistakes. The BATF&E isn’t making mistakes they are doing what they do deliberately.

The BATFE is a necessity too, believe me the BATFE plays a much bigger role in fighting terrorism then anyone believes. BATFE Special Agents are at the absolute forefront of explosives technology, you know the thing terrorists use, not that they want to take away your right to go deer hunting with an RPG-7 (That wasn't meant to be condecending it was a play on a quote from the movie Shoot 'em Up). When the FBI, CIA, DHS are investigating anything to deal with explosives or want to run hypothetical terrorist attack scenarios, they call the BATFE. Without the BATFE you would lose the concentration of explosives experts who will be dispersed among a dozen agencies (assuming they stay federal) and will be tasked with other responsibilities.

Also without the BATFE the Glock or whatever other handgun you are carrying to protect you and your family will be utterly ineffective against what will be out on the streets.

The military willingly and purposefully transfered arms, with the CIA, in both Afghanistan and Iran-Contra, those arms are now being used against the very honorable men and women fighting for the US.

As for Waco, thats not even worth arguing with you over, was it the best operation, no. Did it need to happen, yes, it was a legal raid for valid reasons.

Spats McGee
07-19-2011, 08:20
So since the BATFE is simply requiring FFL's to submit names of those engaging in suspicious purchases so the BATFE can catalog them in a inter-agency database your going to lose your rights to buy a firearm legally, this new policy in no way limits that ability.
Whether the new regs "limit that ability" at present or not, . . . that's one issue. I have some concerns about what the government (generally) will do with that information in the future. Frankly, I'm not ok with the idea that a federal agency is going to catalog the ways in which I exercise a constitutional right. I don't list my religion on my tax return, either.

As for the title of this thread, the BATFE simply enforces the United States Code, and as an executive agency works to enforce actions of the United States Executive Office, the Presidency. The BATFE does not and cannot unilaterally create and or impose new laws.
Do they not issue regulations? Do those regulations not have the force of law? I seem to recall that there are criminal sanctions attached to violations of their regulations.

What you imagine the BATFE is going to do when it "ratchets up" the restrictions cannot be done by the BATFE or the USDOJ alone.
Who said they would do it alone?

Besides, the statement that it "cannot be done" is very, very broad. I would like to think that they cannot:
1) direct FFLs to sell firearms to known or suspected straw purchasers;
2) allow functional firearms, sold as in #1 above, to go across the border;
3) where they should reasonably have expected said firearms to end up in the hands of violent, drug-smuggling cartels; and then
4) stonewall Congress about the whole thing.

I would like to think that you're correct about the BATFE supporting our 2A rights. Recent events simply do not lead me to that conclusion, though.

FearTheBoomAndBust
07-19-2011, 08:37
Do they not issue regulations? Do those regulations not have the force of law? I seem to recall that there are criminal sanctions attached to violations of their regulations.

You mean the Code of Federal Regulations? Specifically Code 27 which deals with the BATFE.

The Code of Federal Regulations is the interpretation of the United States Code and other statutes by Executive Agencies, the US Congress gave the authority to the Executive Agencies to publish the interpretation of the US Code because thats the only way it would get done.

Now those interpretation must be reasonable, as judged by the Judicial System upon review. Now if the Executive, Judicial, and Congressional Branches all agree then it cannot be said that only one agency created a new "law".

What I think caused the miscommunication is when I stated that the BATFE couldn't create new rules on its own, which is true. The BATFE cannot and does not create new laws, it does however issue INTERPRETATIONS of the United States Code and other Statues as directed and necessary by the US Congress. Those are subject to the review of the Judiciary. That means that all three branches are involved.

Spats McGee
07-19-2011, 09:22
FearTheBoomAndBust,
For clarity of my response, I've rearranged your post a little.

You mean the Code of Federal Regulations? Specifically Code 27 which deals with the BATFE.

The Code of Federal Regulations is the interpretation of the United States Code and other statutes by Executive Agencies, the US Congress gave the authority to the Executive Agencies to publish the interpretation of the US Code because thats the only way it would get done. . . . .

What I think caused the miscommunication is when I stated that the BATFE couldn't create new rules on its own, which is true. The BATFE cannot and does not create new laws, it does however issue INTERPRETATIONS of the United States Code and other Statues as directed and necessary by the US Congress. Those are subject to the review of the Judiciary. That means that all three branches are involved.
Yes, but then we get to the question of why it was necessary to give any agency the authority to interpret the US Code. Congress has legislative authority. Can they not simply draft provisions to tell the reader what a statute means? Or is it the province of the courts to determine what a law means?

In the organizational plan that you have laid out above, I contend that a new interpretation of the law, as issued by the agency charged with the duty to enforce it, is created solely through the executive branch. Congress has delegated the authority to interpret the law. As far as I know, it is not involved in the interpretation of that law after that point. The judiciary will not come into play until a challenge is mounted. It could be months, or even years, before the judicary gets involved.


Now those interpretation must be reasonable, as judged by the Judicial System upon review. Now if the Executive, Judicial, and Congressional Branches all agree then it cannot be said that only one agency created a new "law".
With all due respect, I'll simply disagree. Those interpretations must be constitutional. Whether "reasonable" is the standard for constitutionality is a separate issue. When it comes to the Second Amendment, "reasonable" may or may not be the standard. I feel confident that you're familiar with both the Second and Fourth Amendments, but they make for a nice comparison and contrast.

The Second Amendment: "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." U.S. Const., Amend. II.

On the other hand, the Fourth Amendment: "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." U.S. Const., Amend. IV.

One Amendment refers to reasonableness. The other does not.

FearTheBoomAndBust
07-19-2011, 10:01
Yes, but then we get to the question of why it was necessary to give any agency the authority to interpret the US Code. Congress has legislative authority. Can they not simply draft provisions to tell the reader what a statute means?

The reason Congress gave the authority to write interpretations in the Code of Federal Regulations is because Congress was aware of the fact that if they tried to do it, nothing would get done, much in the way the debt ceiling talks are stalled now.

So Congress delegated the responsibility because there is the backstop of the courts to decide what is a reasonable interpretation.


One Amendment refers to reasonableness. The other does not.

All amendments refer to reasonableness at their root. Lets take the First Amendment, your freedom of speech is only protected as long as it does not present a clear and present danger; that is the courts found it reasonable to limit dangerous speech.

Ever since Marbury vs. Madison there has been Judicial Review in the United States, that means that all amendments can be limited to reasonable actions.

I'm sorry if I misinterpreted what you were trying to say.

In the organizational plan that you have laid out above, I contend that a new interpretation of the law, as issued by the agency charged with the duty to enforce it, is created solely through the executive branch. Congress has delegated the authority to interpret the law. As far as I know, it is not involved in the interpretation of that law after that point. The judiciary will not come into play until a challenge is mounted. It could be months, or even years, before the judicary gets involved.


Thats a very very reasonable point and I can see your reasoning behind that position. My contention would be that with the way the US judicial system is set up as soon as the law is tried to be used it will be challenged, maybe not to SCOTUS levels but easily up to the appellate level. I am however not a legal scholar, but that is what US Attorneys have told me, as well as what I have been told. As for Congress delegating the authority and that excluding them, I agree I will concede that one to you. However for something major to happen, they (Congress) will have to act. Also at any extent the Judiciary is still involved, for actually 2 reasons:
A) The BATFE, DEA, USSS, FBI, IRS CID, or EPA doesn't want a provision of the CFR to be overturned on Judicial Review, so the Judiciary is often consulted in the writing of the provisions.
B) The Judiciary still holds Judicial Review so the regulations are constantly subject to review from a second branch.


I hope that has clarified my position, i also am thoroughly enjoying this debate due to its logic and civility.

cowboywannabe
07-19-2011, 10:11
what many many folks are missing is that while 90% or so of the batfe agents support the 2nd Amndt, they are not the ones in charge of the agency and do not write the policies and give the orders. they simply carry out the orders that are masked as legit.

do you think the field agents for the batfe made up the sma that is the fast and furious? or was it the 10% of them in an office setting?

do you think the field agents were told it was illegal and to break the law anyway, or do you think they were told this is part of a secret plan to catch a bigger fish?

the batfe is corrupt at the top. period. and as you filter down you get agents that do follow the law, respect the 2nd Amdnt....and are pro gun rights.

netmage2112
07-19-2011, 10:26
David Olofson & Albert Kwan

http://www.wnd.com/?pageId=45503
http://www.wnd.com/index.php/index.php?pageId=276693

Spats McGee
07-19-2011, 10:28
The reason Congress gave the authority to write interpretations in the Code of Federal Regulations is because Congress was aware of the fact that if they tried to do it, nothing would get done, much in the way the debt ceiling talks are stalled now.

So Congress delegated the responsibility because there is the backstop of the courts to decide what is a reasonable interpretation.
Which leads us right back to the question of why that was necessary. Congress did delegate that authority, and I understand that. I would suggest that there are many folks in this country who would say that Congress surrendered its authority, rather than simply delegating it. That, however, is the subject of a different debate.

All amendments refer to reasonableness at their root. Lets take the First Amendment, your freedom of speech is only protected as long as it does not present a clear and present danger; that is the courts found it reasonable to limit dangerous speech.
True, but how many other Amendments have a federal agency dedicated to their regulation? Under the First Amendment, the presumption is that I'm entitled to speak, with no proof of such entitlement. If I want to buy from an FFL, though, I have to prove my entitlement to exercise that right, before such exercise takes place.

Ever since Marbury vs. Madison there has been Judicial Review in the United States, that means that all amendments can be limited to reasonable actions.

I'm sorry if I misinterpreted what you were trying to say.
You did not misinterpret it, and you are correct about judicial review and Marbury v. Madison. (A brilliant decision in the context in which it was made, IMO.)

However, there's one point that I was trying to make that you may have missed: Separation of Powers. Congress, a Legislative body, delegated Legislative authority to an Executive body . . . That's the point I was trying to get to. It's not only a bad idea, but may well be a violation of the Separation of Powers.

. . . . Also at any extent the Judiciary is still involved, for actually 2 reasons:
A) The BATFE, DEA, USSS, FBI, IRS CID, or EPA doesn't want a provision of the CFR to be overturned on Judicial Review, so the Judiciary is often consulted in the writing of the provisions.
Perhaps, but . . . Government agencies may not want a provision of the CFR overturned, but I would submit that their objection is more practical than anything else. Having CFR provisions, or statutes, overturned is just an administrative headache more than anything else.

Perhaps more importantly, has there been any government, anywhere in history, that was not interested in expanding its power?

OldCurlyWolf
07-19-2011, 10:32
So since the BATFE is simply requiring FFL's to submit names of those engaging in suspicious purchases so the BATFE can catalog them in a inter-agency database your going to lose your rights to buy a firearm legally, this new policy in no way limits that ability.

As for the title of this thread, the BATFE simply enforces the United States Code, and as an executive agency works to enforce actions of the United States Executive Office, the Presidency. The BATFE does not and cannot unilaterally create and or impose new laws.

What you imagine the BATFE is going to do when it "ratchets up" the restrictions cannot be done by the BATFE or the USDOJ alone.

And finally:


The BATFE simply does not want to do that (I can confidently state that) and is not attempting to create a pretense for it. I can personally assure you that 90%+ of BATFE employees, specifically the Special Agents and people in "management" love and support the 2nd amendment and the legal ownership of firearms as much if not more then you personally do.

I truly apologize if at any point I sounded condescending or rambling, if there is anything else you wish to discuss on this topic just respond. There is a lot of misconceptions about the majority of what the BATFE does and stands for.

As always, stay safe :supergrin:

The actions of the BATFE belie your assertions.

The BATFE should never have been created and every piece of federal "gun control" legislation that has been passed in the last 224 years should not exist under our constitution. Ergo your arguments in favor of the BATFE are superfluous drivel.

FearTheBoomAndBust
07-19-2011, 10:46
The actions of the BATFE belie your assertions.

The BATFE should never have been created and every piece of federal "gun control" legislation that has been passed in the last 224 years should not exist under our constitution. Ergo your arguments in favor of the BATFE are superfluous drivel.

So then there should be no restrictions placed upon any firearms, any tobacco trade, and most importantly no EXPLOSIVES?

If all of the regulations flys in the face of the US Constitution why has the Supreme Court not overturned it? Answer that question.
Is it maybe because it doesn't violate it? Is it because the Constitution is a living breathing document that is supposed to be interpreted? Is it because maybe just maybe ( I do NOT believe this FYI) the 2nd Amendment doesn't mean what you think it means? Maybe it is because regulation of rights is necessary to have the laws that back up those rights?

If I want to buy from an FFL, though, I have to prove my entitlement to exercise that right, before such exercise takes place.

I see where your coming from, but lets for argument sake say that I think you are a counterfeiter or a threat to President Obama, but I have no evidence; but hey I know I'm right so I search your home without a warrant to get that evidence. Lets for argument sake (I'm obviously not implying truth or slandering you in anyway) I find a kilo of diacetylmorphine (heroin). That search and seizure was illegal, no warrant. I arrest you anyway and the US Attorney charges you, you (and your lawyer) has to prove to a judge that the search was illegal though, you have to show that you have the right and prove its violated.

I know thats kind of an awkward example because its more of your proving its violated not that you have it but its similar logic.

Also, you have the right to keep and bear arms, the second amendment does not entitle you (directly) to purchase (lets ignore legislative intent). so you are proving to the FFLD that you are entitled to keep and bear the arms, therefore you should be allowed to purchase it.

Spats McGee
07-19-2011, 12:20
. . . . I'm obviously not implying truth or slandering you in anyway. . . .
No, you're not. It's just a hypothetical, and no offense taken. "Jus' two guys talkin'," as it were.

As to the rest of this, I'm not trying to bust your chops here, FTBAB. I just don't see things the way you do, and I can't resist a good discussion.

So then there should be no restrictions placed upon any firearms, any tobacco trade, and most importantly no EXPLOSIVES?
Constitutionally, firearms enjoy protections that alcohol and tobacco do not.

If all of the regulations flys in the face of the US Constitution why has the Supreme Court not overturned it? Answer that question.
Is it maybe because it doesn't violate it? Is it because the Constitution is a living breathing document that is supposed to be interpreted? Is it because maybe just maybe ( I do NOT believe this FYI) the 2nd Amendment doesn't mean what you think it means?
In part, regulation of 2A rights has not been overturned because there hasn't been a decent plaintiff to challenge it. For example, the only people with standing to challenge the restriction on "felon in possession" laws would be felons. There may be some decent plaintiffs who fall into that group. However non-felons lack standing to challenge the restriction, and I would wager that the vast majority of convicted felons make rotten plaintiffs in such challenges. Mind you, that's just one aspect. There are other challenges that (I suspect) have simply not been made that involve the right court and the right plaintiff. For example, there's a young man in Texas right now that is challenging (IIRC) the age requirement (21) to purchase a handgun. If I remember correctly, he's a long-time shooter, Junior ROTC member, and generally desirable plaintiff, and he's in Texas. . .

Maybe it is because regulation of rights is necessary to have the laws that back up those rights?
Can you explain what you mean by this?

I see where your coming from, but lets for argument sake say that I think you are a counterfeiter or a threat to President Obama, but I have no evidence; but hey I know I'm right so I search your home without a warrant to get that evidence. Lets for argument sake (I'm obviously not implying truth or slandering you in anyway) I find a kilo of diacetylmorphine (heroin). That search and seizure was illegal, no warrant. I arrest you anyway and the US Attorney charges you, you (and your lawyer) has to prove to a judge that the search was illegal though, you have to show that you have the right and prove its violated.

I know thats kind of an awkward example because its more of your proving its violated not that you have it but its similar logic.

Also, you have the right to keep and bear arms, the second amendment does not entitle you (directly) to purchase (lets ignore legislative intent). so you are proving to the FFLD that you are entitled to keep and bear the arms, therefore you should be allowed to purchase it.
Well, I don't think that counterfeiting falls under the ATF's jurisdiction, but that's neither here nor there. Let's go with your hypothetical, but I'd like to amend it a little:
I see where your coming from, but lets for argument sake say that I think you are a . . . a threat to President Obama, but I have no evidence; but hey I know I'm right so I search your home without a warrant to get that evidence. Lets for argument sake . . . . I find a kilo of diacetylmorphine (heroin). That search and seizure was illegal, no warrant. I arrest you anyway and the US Attorney charges you, you (and your lawyer) has to prove to a judge that the search was illegal though, you have to show that you have the right and prove its violated.
1) Possession of heroin is never mentioned in the Constitution. Its possession is not protected.
2) Warrantless searches of the home are presumptively unconstitutional. ("Although the text of the Fourth Amendment does not specify when a search warrant must be obtained, this Court has inferred that a warrant must generally be secured. “It is a ‘basic principle of Fourth Amendment law,’ ” we have often said, “ ‘that searches and seizures inside a home without a warrant are presumptively unreasonable.’ ” Kentucky v. King, 131 S. Ct. 1849, 1856, 179 L. Ed. 2d 865 (2011)) In other words, no, I don't have to prove that the search was illegal. The government has to prove that it was legal. (Ordinarily, this is done by the prosecutor simply saying, "Look, Judge. My guys had a warrant.")
3) Assuming that the search was in fact illegal (as you stated above), the remedy is that the heroin (and any other "fruit of the poisonous tree") will be excluded from my trial. Let's say you happen to stumble across a fully automatic machine gun while you're there. That, too, will be excluded.

This is precisely the opposite from what goes on with 2A rights, at least in the area where purchases of new firearms from FFLs are concerned. If I want to buy a new gun, I have to prove to the FFL that I'm entitled to do so. Bear in mind, though, that the only reason I have to prove it to the FFL is because federal law says so. IOW, the government has decided that I have to prove that I'm entitled to exercise that right before I'm allowed to do so. The 2A is one of the few rights (albeit not the only one) as to which I have to prove entitlement prior to exercise.

. . . .Also, you have the right to keep and bear arms, the second amendment does not entitle you (directly) to purchase (lets ignore legislative intent). so you are proving to the FFLD that you are entitled to keep and bear the arms, therefore you should be allowed to purchase it.
I'll also disagree about the entitlement to purchase. If I'm entitled to possess, I'm entitled to purchase. Otherwise, my right to possess isn't much of a right. Chicago is currently under attack for a similar line of thinking. Its city council dictated range training in order to get a firearms permit, but banned ranges. That was recently struck by the 7th Circuit.

Jerry
07-19-2011, 17:51
In my years with the BATFE
I am a former Special Agent for the Bureau of Alcohol Tobacco Firearms and Explosives,


No wonder you are SO adamant about how necessary and good the BATF&E is. You sir were / are part of the problem.


The BATFE is a necessity too, believe me the BATFE plays a much bigger role in fighting terrorism then anyone believes.

See, there is a perfect example of how far afield and screwed up the members of BATF&E’s belief system is. You honestly believe you are “necessary”. BATF&E has no business dealing with terrorists. But I’m sure they will be adding the T to make sure they are still ”NECESSARY”. They started out as A, alcohol tax goon squad then added a T so they could “control” Tobacco then an F so they could “CONTROL” Firearms (contrary to the Constitution) and lastly the E so they could encompass reloading supplies. The FBI was already controlling BOMB building and threats. So next the BATF&E needs another T so they can use terrorism as another excuse for their being “NECESSARY” even though the CIA and FBI have been carrying that ball for years.


Also without the BATFE the Glock or whatever other handgun you are carrying to protect you and your family will be utterly ineffective against what will be out on the streets.

:rofl: That is just so hilarious it’s hard to keep from laughing out loud. BATF&E can’t keep poop out the hands of criminals. Now I don’t know anyone that can supply this but living near a major city I’m sure I can find a drug dealer quit easily. I’m sure a drug dealer can find me just about any kind of firearm I’m willing to pay for. And that is just how affective the BATF&E is. In fact it wouldn’t surprise me one bit that if I were to seek a firearm that I would get one supplied by BATF&E &T.

And now a moment for a special prayer. Oh lord please don’t let the JBT kick in my door over the above statement.


The military willingly and purposefully transfered arms, with the CIA, in both Afghanistan and Iran-Contra, those arms are now being used against the very honorable men and women fighting for the US.
Let me see. You honestly believe that the military and CIA giving weapons to people they thought were going to help us and those people turning against us is on a par with BATF&E giving guns to KNOWN criminals that the BATF&E knew would use them against US citizens and our law enforcement. That type of thinking is exactly why the BATF&E needs to be abolished.

As for Waco, that’s not even worth arguing with you over, was it the best operation, no. Did it need to happen, yes, it was a legal raid for valid reasons.

You were a child when Waco happened and have been spoon fed the lies told by ATF as to what REALLY happened. Koresh offered to surrender long before the attack upon his “HOME”. Koresh went jogging every day and could have been apprehended while unarmed on a lonely road. ATF wanted to teach them and ALL us lowly citizens a lesson. Well sir they did. They thought us that the ATF and FBI aren’t to be trusted because they have no honor. They WILL kill you and your children if you don’t cower down.

I’m glad to hear that you’ve chuck the most dishonorable agency in favor of one that is a little more honorable.

It’s a shame you still believe the BATF&E is necessary for it surely is not.

what many many folks are missing is that while 90% or so of the batfe agents support the 2nd Amndt, they are not the ones in charge of the agency and do not write the policies and give the orders. they simply carry out the orders that are masked as legit.


Famous last word of the Nazi war criminals. I was only following orders! :steamed:

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.

The men and women of BATF&E swear an oath to uphold the Constitution. Then they go after people on firearms “violations” contrary to the Constitution they SWORE to uphold and protect. They even trump up charges against innocent men and prosecuted with lies, tampered evidence and cover-ups. Even when found guilty in a court of law or in Congressional hearings they are not held accountable. They use the excuse they were following orders. They have deliberately killed American children in the name of following orders. Defend that.

OldCurlyWolf
07-20-2011, 00:45
Since recently the bunch of criminals you are so underwhelmingly trying to defend have been contributing to arming the criminal element in TWO countries, all of your "arguments" are still superfluous drivel and the BATFE needs to be totally disbanded as a corrupt and illegal organization. The RICO act actually applies to that bunch.

:cool:

Lawmaker
07-20-2011, 09:17
I will agree with the explosives experts argument. However the ATF in BATFE is not needing of a federal organization. ATF should be regulated by the states. In most cases they are already. How much money would the federal government save by disbanding BATFE? Why was it created in the first place? Was there anarchy before it's creation?

Electrikkoolaid
07-20-2011, 09:47
That search and seizure was illegal, no warrant. I arrest you anyway and the US Attorney charges you, you (and your lawyer) has to prove to a judge that the search was illegal though, you have to show that you have the right and prove its violated.


The problem is, that when the agency itself is interpreting the parameters by which it enforces the laws, too much political influence is interjected.

The fact that you can get jammed on federal charges for adding a piece of plastic (http://www.amazon.com/Tactical-Stock-Adapter-Glock-Edition/dp/B003B3KFTY) to your gun is pretty silly.

Defining this device as a SBR and requiring a $200 tax stamp (or ruining the life of anyone who makes a minor transgression of illogical rules) is exactly why gun owners hate/fear the ATF.

The federal government has essentially limitless resources. If you stomp on my rights, and I sue, it will take years before the issue is resolved.

Gazillions of dollars later (all out of my pocket) I may or may not win, but in the interim, I sit in jail or have my second amendment rights denied.

While in theory we have constitutional rights, in practice we as individuals are severely limited by the immense mismatch in resources we can bring to bear to litigate our grievances.

Jerry
07-20-2011, 11:27
I will agree with the explosives experts argument. However the ATF in BATFE is not needing of a federal organization. ATF should be regulated by the states. In most cases they are already. How much money would the federal government save by disbanding BATFE? Why was it created in the first place? Was there anarchy before it's creation?

“The ATF was formerly part of the United States Department of the Treasury, having been formed in 1886 as the "Revenue Laboratory" within the Treasury Department's Bureau of Internal Revenue. The history of ATF can be subsequently traced to the time of the revenuers or "revenoors"[6] and the Bureau of Prohibition, which was formed as a unit of the Bureau of Internal Revenue in 1920, was made an independent agency within the Treasury Department in 1927, was transferred to the Justice Department in 1930, and became, briefly, a division of the FBI in 1933.

When the Volstead Act was repealed in December 1933, the Unit was transferred from the Department of Justice back to the Department of the Treasury where it became the Alcohol Tax Unit of the Bureau of Internal Revenue.”….. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bureau_of_Alcohol,_Tobacco,_Firearms_and_Explosives

crimsonaudio
07-20-2011, 11:40
The BATFE exists to limit our 2A rights, period. You can spin it however you wish but at its core, that's the truth.

Magicmanmb
07-20-2011, 16:45
Ever read Orwell's 1984?

jerry12
11-04-2011, 11:07
Well folks, my paranoid brethren, it appears you really were right: "Fast and Furious" truly does appear to have been all about creating a pretense for registering and controlling legal gun purchases inside the US.

http://news.yahoo.com/atf-require-gun-buyer-information-border-213420855.html

Now I'm no conspiracy type, and I dismissed out of hand all the talk about the "real reason" behind Operation Gunwalker. But I can't deny the information provided in this story:



So there you have it - first the ATF targets four states, a few weapons types, and multiple buys. Maybe we should start a pool about when the next step up the ratchet arrives, and which guns, states, and buyers will be targeted. For our safety and security, of course!
Another Unconstitutional move by the Omama administration bypassing Congress. Obama should be impeach for breaking the Constitutional laws so congress do your job or we will fire you in 2012.

FearTheBoomAndBust
12-26-2011, 21:25
The fact that you can get jammed on federal charges for adding a piece of plastic to your gun is pretty silly.

Defining this device as a SBR and requiring a $200 tax stamp (or ruining the life of anyone who makes a minor transgression of illogical rules) is exactly why gun owners hate/fear the ATF.

I can add several chemicals found in your home using your kitchen pots and pans and make an effective IED as well but I don't see people saying noone should regulate that.

Just because a process seems trivial, the end result is what is important and if it is illegal it is illegal and wrong, don't blame the BATFE for enforcing the laws they are sworn to protect.

No wonder you are SO adamant about how necessary and good the BATF&E is. You sir were / are part of the problem

I am an adamant supporter of your legal right to own and use a legal firearm in a legal way

The BATFE exists to limit our 2A rights, period. You can spin it however you wish but at its core, that's the truth.

I was (still am) sworn to uphold the Constitution of the US, the 2nd amendment is part of that. Read the above response of mine.

They thought us that the ATF and FBI arenít to be trusted because they have no honor. They WILL kill you and your children if you donít cower down.

Iím glad to hear that youíve chuck the most dishonorable agency in favor of one that is a little more honorable.

I have a massive amount of honor, always have always will, and was employed as an Intern for the FBI during my college years and in the BATFE as a SA.

And my new agency is no more honorable then my last, I assure you.

I uphold/upheld the laws and Constitution of the United States during my employments with each. I promise, no one in the BATFE Special Agent corp wants to take away your 2nd amendment or trample the rights of LAWFUL gun owners.

Now as for all of that, I understand where all of your anger comes from since you are only hearing about the BATFE's failures, not all of its successes. I hope everyone had a merry christmas, or a happy whatever you celebrate :wavey:.

Jerry
12-27-2011, 00:42
You support what BATF&E has done. You have failed to support the Constitution. Show me where the Constitution grants the BATF&E the power to break the law by selling firearms to criminals/enemies of this country. Show me where the Constitution grants BATF&E the power to write rules that infringe on our 2nd. Amendment right. Show me where the Constitution grants BATF&E agents the power to lie in court and to congress. I watched them lie in congressional hearings both about what happened at Waco and Ruby Ridge.

Try to defend being a BATF&E agent anyway you will. The truth is out there for anyone willing to look for it. You canít deny the truth and buy showing your support you prove you were part of the problem. You have failed to keep your oath. :frown:

FearTheBoomAndBust
12-27-2011, 10:30
Jerry, I have only one question because without putting you in the Bureau for a day with a TS/SCI and Need to Know there is no way to change your warped view of the BATFE. Would you support getting rid of every branch of government and every agency thereof?

Because the history of each has been paved with lies to congress and deceit, agencies make mistakes, operations take high risk to yield the high rewards needed to put them in a positive spotlight.

I watched them lie in congressional hearings both about what happened at Waco and Ruby Ridge.

One of my good friends was there, his response to that statement would be, and this is a paraphrased quote, "Well hell, they shoulda called me to testify in front of Congress I woulda only made one short statement: 'We went there to execute a lawful arrest for David willfully and blatantly breaking the law, they shot first, after day 1 four of my buddies lay dead. You can't kill a Federal Agent I, and the commanders tend to take that seriously Mr. Chairman, what did you want us to do, say hey Mr. Crazy man thanks for the shower of bullets we're going to turn tail and run now bye'."

Don't ever confuse the politically motivated drivel seen in Congressional hearings for the real BATFE, and don't view them (us) as monsters because of it.

Show me where the Constitution grants BATF&E the power to write rules that infringe on our 2nd. Amendment right.

Congress does under the Bureau's ability to write the Code of Federal Regulations, Firearms control just happens to be one of the areas the BATFE enforces.


You canít deny the truth and buy showing your support you prove you were part of the problem. You have failed to keep your oath.

You have it confused again, your anger should be directed at the political appointees (which consists of the Director and AG), not the Special Agents.
Everyday that I went to work I protected YOUR 2nd Amendment right (I assume your a lawful and legal firearms owner and user). Everyone I worked with put their lives on the line right next to mine to do the exact same, please do not slander us over the Directors politics sir.

You can have whatever opinions on the AG or Director or Executive Branch as a whole that you want, but don't take it out in broad strokes against the BATFE as a whole, the United States is safer with it then without it, trust me on that one.

blk69stang
12-27-2011, 11:01
I swore an oath to "preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution of the United States from all enemies, foreign and domestic."

Every BATFE agent, by the very fact of their employment in that evil agency, is breaking their oath of office, and will one day have to answer to the Almighty for breaking that oath.

I take my oath seriously. And BATFE agents are ENEMIES OF THE CONSTITUTION. Period.

FearTheBoomAndBust
12-27-2011, 11:28
I swore an oath to "preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution of the United States from all enemies, foreign and domestic."

Every BATFE agent, by the very fact of their employment in that evil agency, is breaking their oath of office, and will one day have to answer to the Almighty for breaking that oath.

I take my oath seriously. And BATFE agents are ENEMIES OF THE CONSTITUTION. Period.

I helped keep Explosives out of the hands of terrorists, I was sent overseas to help the US Army better disarm IED's for 2 months, I'm pretty sure I helped the Constitution more then I hurt her. But I see your point, I really actually dont though.
Have you ever met a BATFE agent? I promise they're really nice 2nd Amendment loving people.:faint:

Jerry
12-27-2011, 14:11
FearTheBoomAndBust, I don't have time to respond right now but I promise I will before the nights out. Quick answer to your first question though. Yes I’ve met three agents. One was very nice. Two were real A-HOLES. But then I personally new a Federal Marshals and he and two others that I met turned out to be A-Holes. My opinion hasn’t been formed because of things I’ve been told by others, it's been formed through first had experience and what I’ve see with my own eyes. I understand there are good and bad in everything. Problem is BATF&E is being run by the bad and the bad are running wild and the good do nothing about it. In your case you left so I give you credit for that.

Gotta go, late for work! Back later.

Jerry
12-27-2011, 17:09
Jerry, I have only one question because without putting you in the Bureau for a day with a TS/SCI and Need to Know there is no way to change your warped view of the BATFE. Would you support getting rid of every branch of government and every agency thereof?
My warped view tells me any agency that’s primary function is enforcing unconstitutional law should be abolished or at least put into check (bound by the chains of the Constitution). If the ATF were put into check it could no longer function so it may as well be abolished.

You have stated, paraphrasing here, that you swore an oath to uphold the constitution and then you stated that you only enforce the law. Most of what ATF does is enforce unconstitutional (“shall not be infringed”) law. So which is it? You enforce the law or you uphold the Constitution?

Because the history of each has been paved with lies to congress and deceit, agencies make mistakes, operations take high risk to yield the high rewards needed to put them in a positive spotlight.

See! Here is where “HONOR” is proven or lost. You believe because other agencies have lied it’s ok. So much for honor.

One of my good friends was there, his response to that statement would be, and this is a paraphrased quote, "Well hell, they shoulda called me to testify in front of Congress I woulda only made one short statement: 'We went there to execute a lawful arrest for David willfully and blatantly breaking the law, they shot first, after day 1 four of my buddies lay dead. You can't kill a Federal Agent I, and the commanders tend to take that seriously Mr. Chairman, what did you want us to do, say hey Mr. Crazy man thanks for the shower of bullets we're going to turn tail and run now bye'."

Your “good” friend is exactly the type of agent that makes BATF as bad as it is. Your praise of what he would have done and want the BATF did prove how bad the mindset of BATF agents is.

And what law did Kersh brake? Are you talking unconstitutional law about automatic weapons? Or is it that he didn’t pay the unconstitutional Tax. And what happened to “ALL” those automatic weapons. Seems they just disappeared didn’t they?

We all know Kersh went jogging every morning ALONE down a DESERTED dirt road. An arrest could have very easily been made then if all that was wanted was an arrest. BATF wanted to make a point. They know there would be a gun fight so they went in and did exactly want they wanted.

And what of the “children” they supposedly wanted to save from a fait worse than death. They burned them all alive. Very honorable! Now they either did that on purpose or it shows just how stupid BATF agents really are. I’m going with on purpose.

Don't ever confuse the politically motivated drivel seen in Congressional hearings for the real BATFE, and don't view them (us) as monsters because of it.

Oh, I don’t view you as monsters because of that. I view you as monsters for what was done a Waco, Ruby Ridge and in many home invasions. The view I gained from the congressional hearings are that all involved, from the top to the bottom are liars and have no honor and that those that weren’t involved support lying murderers.



Congress does under the Bureau's ability to write the Code of Federal Regulations, Firearms control just happens to be one of the areas the BATFE enforces.

The Constitution does not grant congress the power to grant power to write “code” that is enforces as law to individual agencies. The “code” is unconstitutional on two fronts. It's unconstitutional for BATF to make law/code and the code itself in unconstitutional because it’s in direct defiance of the 2nd. Amendment.


You have it confused again, your anger should be directed at the political appointees (which consists of the Director and AG), not the Special Agents.

First it isn’t anger it’s disgust. I hold everyone you have mentioned in disgust. Every time I hear a law informant agent try to blame what they do on others it rings of Hitler’s disciples. We were/are only following orders.

Everyday that I went to work I protected YOUR 2nd Amendment right (I assume your a lawful and legal firearms owner and user). Everyone I worked with put their lives on the line right next to mine to do the exact same, please do not slander us over the Directors politics sir.

Yes I’m a law abiding and legal firearms owner. I have jumped through all the unconstitutional hoops. I hold a CCW and city Commission. Will that stop me from having a visit after posting what I have? God only knows. What I do know is that if an agent is order to kick in my door he will NO QUESTIONS ASKED.

I do not slander over the directors policies. I admonish over the willful following of his orders and willful support of liars and murderers.

If I had sold guns to criminals/terrorists/drug cartels and those guns, no let’s say one gun, had killed one American, god forbid if that American were law informant, I would be imprisoned for the rest of my life. What has/will happen to all BATF members, including the Attorneys General and the Director, involved? The same thing that happened to those involved in Waco and Ruby Ridge. Maybe, just maybe a slap on the wrist while all of the BATF pats them on the back and congregates them for getting away with it.

You can have whatever opinions on the AG or Director or Executive Branch as a whole that you want, but don't take it out in broad strokes against the BATFE as a whole, the United States is safer with it then without it, trust me on that one.

I supposed what was done to the Jews and other prisoners of war should not have been taken out on those that preformed the acts? After all it was Hitler and the SS’s fault right? All the war criminals were just innocent dupes. Give me a F-ing brake!

If anyone has a warped sense of view here it’s the insider trying to defend the criminals in the BATF. If you want to place blame don't look to the AG or the Director just look in the merror.


"The only thing necessary for evil to triumph is for good men to do nothing." Edmund Burke

I am only one, but I am one. I cannot do everything, but I can do something. What I can do, I should do and, with the help of God, I will do! [Everett Hale]

You should pay particular attention to those quotes since the concept seems to have eluded you.

FearTheBoomAndBust
12-27-2011, 17:40
Jerry, PLEASE PLEASE PLEASE go to law school, learn what is constitutional or unconstitutional and what all of that really means.

If what the BATFE does is all so "illegal" why hasn't the SCOTUS done anything?

And don't you ever compare me, my former co-workers, or my former agency to Hitler or the SS, I don't care if saying this gets me baned, so be it! DON'T YOU DARE USE THOSE COMPARISONS EVER PERIOD. ENOUGH IS ENOUGH.:steamed:

I upheld the firearms laws of the United States, if you don't like those laws too damn bad, call your Congressman don't blame the BATFE.

As for the legality of the CFR, in both agencies, current and former, it is lawful to use according to the SCOTUS, Legislature, and Executive branch.

Lawyers, Judges, and Legal Scholars, know much more about the actual Constitution and law then either of us, and they have proven all of the BATFE's enforcement laws constitutional and valid.

As for Ruby Ridge and Waco, refer to my other post in this forum.

Now if you will excuse me I'm mad as hell, and I have to get back to work from my break. Or wait, no all the laws I'm planning on enforcing are "illegal" and anti-constitutional since they are in the CFR, USC, and Acts of Congress, not the Constitution....

Jerry
12-27-2011, 19:10
Donít need law school to understand ďshall not be infringedĒ.

The Scots are doing something about it. Have you seen the recent rulings against DC and Chicago? First the case has to get to the Scots. Then they have to agree to hear it. I'm sure what the BATF has/is doing will eventually be heard.

Iíll compare you and the rest of BATF to anyone I wish. Or perhaps youíd like to violate the 1st. also. You came here and defend what they have done. They murdered innocent children in the name of teaching the peons a lesson. We learned a very good lesson. You and your ilk have no honor and will follow orders without question even it if kills children. BATF sold firearms to our enemies and that enemy used those firearms to killed American law enforcement agents in America. Donít like what I have to say, too bad. You came here and put your .02 worth in and expect us to just read and agree? Or perhaps you're used to flashing a badge and having people cower down. Ainít gonna happen here.

Youíre worried about being banned. Iíll go you one better. Iím worried about having my door kicked in, evidence being planted and never seeing the light of day again because of speaking the truth.


Until the Congress changes the Constitution anything done without power being granted by the Constitution is still unconstitutional. 1st. Congress shall make no law. That means I can voice my disapproval of any government agency and its agents. 2nd. ďShall not be infringedĒ means any law/code, regardless what the Scots have or havenít ruled is unconstitutional.

Youíre mad as hell? Good! Too bad you didnít get mad as hell at you brethren in the BATF when they were breaking the law. Donít even try telling me selling arms to known enemies of this country is legal. Funny how law enforcement, particularly BATF believes they are above the law when it comes to commiting criminal acts under the pretense of catching criminals.

Iíd love to hear how you were ďprotectingĒ my 2nd. Amendment rights by violating the rights of others. Please explain that fable to me. :bringiton:

John Rambo
12-28-2011, 09:07
Jerry, PLEASE PLEASE PLEASE go to law school, learn what is constitutional or unconstitutional and what all of that really means.

What do you dispute? Because the BATFE and the things they do are beyond the scope of powers granted to the federal government in our constitution and hence UNCONSTITUTIONAL


If what the BATFE does is all so "illegal" why hasn't the SCOTUS done anything?


Because your bosses are in bed with politicians who have an agenda and several members of SCOTUS have the same agenda.


And don't you ever compare me, my former co-workers, or my former agency to Hitler or the SS, I don't care if saying this gets me baned, so be it! DON'T YOU DARE USE THOSE COMPARISONS EVER PERIOD. ENOUGH IS ENOUGH.:steamed:


If it walks like a duck, talks like a duck, and ****s like a duck...


I upheld the firearms laws of the United States, if you don't like those laws too damn bad, call your Congressman don't blame the BATFE.


Personally, I blame all of you. "I was just following orders!" didn't work for the Nazis, it doesn't work for the cops, and it won't work for you. At least not in my book.


As for the legality of the CFR, in both agencies, current and former, it is lawful to use according to the SCOTUS, Legislature, and Executive branch.


Not according to me. And I assert that they have an AGENDA which has influenced their decisions.

Screaming .357G
12-28-2011, 12:29
:popcorn::popcorn::popcorn::popcorn::nailbiting::whistling:

OldCurlyWolf
12-28-2011, 13:35
So since the BATFE is simply requiring FFL's to submit names of those engaging in suspicious purchases so the BATFE can catalog them in a inter-agency database your going to lose your rights to buy a firearm legally, this new policy in no way limits that ability.

As for the title of this thread, the BATFE simply enforces the United States Code, and as an executive agency works to enforce actions of the United States Executive Office, the Presidency. The BATFE does not and cannot unilaterally create and or impose new laws.

What you imagine the BATFE is going to do when it "ratchets up" the restrictions cannot be done by the BATFE or the USDOJ alone.

And finally:


The BATFE simply does not want to do that (I can confidently state that) and is not attempting to create a pretense for it. I can personally assure you that 90%+ of BATFE employees, specifically the Special Agents and people in "management" love and support the 2nd amendment and the legal ownership of firearms as much if not more then you personally do.

I truly apologize if at any point I sounded condescending or rambling, if there is anything else you wish to discuss on this topic just respond. There is a lot of misconceptions about the majority of what the BATFE does and stands for.

As always, stay safe :supergrin:

You can keep your head in isolation and believe what you want, but the BATFE is not your friendly neighborhood beat cop and they truly deserve to be abolished, with several of all levels spending some time being introduced to "Bubba" at whatever penitentiary they are assigned to serve their time.

frizz
07-21-2012, 12:37
As for the title of this thread, the BATFE simply enforces the United States Code, and as an executive agency works to enforce actions of the United States Executive Office, the Presidency. The BATFE does not and cannot unilaterally create and or impose new laws.


Administrative agencies frequently create new laws. It may be called "rule-making" but the fact that rule-making can make formerly legal activities into crimes or civil wrongs makes administrative agency "rule-making" a de facto creation and imposition of new laws.

Glockdude1
07-21-2012, 12:59
:laughabove: :rofl: :director: The ATF is the worst most rouge agency of the federal government and should be done away with. Next youíll tell me they didnít sell guns to the Mexican cartels that were used to kill federal agents. BATF&E makes up the rules as the go along. :honkie:

:agree:

Lakota
07-23-2012, 05:11
Jerry, PLEASE PLEASE PLEASE go to law school, learn what is constitutional or unconstitutional and what all of that really means.

If what the BATFE does is all so "illegal" why hasn't the SCOTUS done anything?

And don't you ever compare me, my former co-workers, or my former agency to Hitler or the SS, I don't care if saying this gets me baned, so be it! DON'T YOU DARE USE THOSE COMPARISONS EVER PERIOD. ENOUGH IS ENOUGH.:steamed:

I upheld the firearms laws of the United States, if you don't like those laws too damn bad, call your Congressman don't blame the BATFE.

As for the legality of the CFR, in both agencies, current and former, it is lawful to use according to the SCOTUS, Legislature, and Executive branch.

Lawyers, Judges, and Legal Scholars, know much more about the actual Constitution and law then either of us, and they have proven all of the BATFE's enforcement laws constitutional and valid.

As for Ruby Ridge and Waco, refer to my other post in this forum.

Now if you will excuse me I'm mad as hell, and I have to get back to work from my break. Or wait, no all the laws I'm planning on enforcing are "illegal" and anti-constitutional since they are in the CFR, USC, and Acts of Congress, not the Constitution....

Dear FearTheBoom&Bust:

Being unfamiliar with your 'other post in this forum', regarding the issue of Waco, please read, consider and correct or modify any misinformation you may find in the following missive on the subject of the monstrous cataclysm at Waco, Texas, commencing 19 April 1993:


Tolerance Threshold Expansion, continued:

Consider the rogue government and salted media-declared 'mass suicide' (publicly telecast murder of all the immediate witnesses to the rogue government, 51 day televised siege and attack: 'This is not an attack on your compound!') Waco, Tx., 19 April 1993.

They lied on live television ('This is not an attack!') about the armored vehicle crashing through the wall and piercing the propane storage tank, instantly filling the windswept compound with flammable gas (easily ignited by any spark, pilot light or round of tracer) and tactfully cutting off the only escape route (having had and studied a detailed floor plan of the compound for nearly two months. this was not an 'accident'); murdering all but a few of the nearly one hundred occupants, but, they 'didn't lie' about who fired the first shot when it all began fifty one days earlier ('David Koresh did it').

"There will be no coverups in this administration' - Janet Reno, the day after the catastrophic burning of the ‘Branch Davidian compound’, 4/19/’93.

The record is not here to defend David Koresh, on the other hand, nearly one hundred innocent people including several dozen children were pinned down for nearly two months in ‘the compound’. Their electricity and water was cut off, helicopters hovered overhead playing loud music through the night: knowing there were dozens of children, with as many innocent parents, in that trapped community. Culminating in the perishment of all but a few survivors, after 51 days of siege.

‘The best the ATF could do.’
Without intervention from a higher authority.

After the situation became known to the nation via television, radio and the press, then ‘rumors’ - and contrived ‘testimonies’ - began to circulate about David Koresh having intimate relationships with underage adolescent girls. It is noteworthy that this demonisation - the allegations about David Koresh and underage children, did not become an issue until the siege was nationally televised and reported.

The original reason for the ATF going to the compound, was to question two individual men about whether they were legally in possession of firearms or not. ‘Cult leader’ Koresh’s alleged relationships with underage girls was not an issue at all; neither was he ever legally charged with, let alone convicted of any such behavior.

A social worker, or routinely assigned sheriff’s deputy could have been dispatched to question the two subjected men at issue. The two men the ATF wanted to question, routinely left the compound to jog and run errands. Instead, the ATF chose to pin nearly a hundred people (*with the exception of approximately seven survivors, the fates of which are unknown to this record) down in their residence, on private property. Had those people survived, it is likely that they all would have served as witnesses to who fired shots at whom, first. So, apparently for this reason (and publicly 'educational', exemplary'pay-back'), *all of the witnesses were perished by a fire deliberately started by the rogue ATF and the rogue F.B.I. - each, and both of these presiding agencies disallowing incumbent fire-men - and their abundant fire-fighting equipment at the site, from taking action; whereupon the the two cited 'agencies' heinously proclaimed the ensuing conflagration to be a ‘mass suicide’ - perishing the witnesses to what started the siege in the first place.

(Why is the record issuing this subject now? Because: it happened, with impunity, and, it can - therefore - happen again. Witness 'Fast & Furious', while no heads rolled...)

Refer the film - and video - 'WACO: The Rules Of Engagement. The New York Times called it “.. a doozy of an investigative expose!” Siskel & Ebert gave it ‘two thumbs up!’ The video jacket reads: “WACO: The Rules Of Engagement, is the story of federal law enforcement gone tragically wrong. It shows how the F.B.I. (and the ATF) repeatedly lied to the public and American political leaders in order to focus overwhelming deadly force on a group whose diversity of race, national origin and religious beliefs made them easy targets for a lethal abuse of its members’ civil and human rights."

TIME magazine’s 24 July 1995 front page and feature article called the Alcohol, Tobacco & Firearms <atf>law enforcement agency: ‘The most hated federal law enforcement agency in the U.S.</atf>’.

The nation that will witness this and be sheepishly persuaded that what it saw and heard wasn't what was heard and seen: is looking at it's own blazing, windswept, rogue-government-quarantined future. Squared. Including the knowing, willfully extended torture and immolation of dozens of children.

This dissertation is not interested in ‘system busting’, or contention with elements of law enforcement. The record is a staunch system-protector, an avid law enforcement advocate and ally...

On the other hand, here are somber arguments with assigned authorities who patently betray their oaths of office; abuse their power, compounding this abuse by covering up their transgressions, blaming innocent people, and lying to the public and key representatives of the American government and protectors of the - much revered - U.S. Constitution (and their forthright fellow officers) about the cited abuse of power(s).

Addendum:
Your signature nombre de plume *"FearTheBoomAndBust" speaks volumes antithetical to the verity of perhaps a dozen or so leaders of the American Revolution, addressing 'We the people' and those individuals and institutions installed by the 'We the people', that the government should fear the people, rather than the converse - which your very *signature directly implies: tantamount to *terrorism, which your institution heinously and unforgettably demonstrated (with the world - literally - as witness) - for 51 exemplary, undeniably terrorist saturated days, in Waco, Texas; commencing 19 April 1993.

RSVP - Looking forward to your 'corrections', Mr. FearBoomBust.

Sincere best regards to all peaceful participants,
(Pilamaya-Thank You-Tiospaye - extended family)
- Arapaho, aka, Lakota Tatanka.
Ordained Chaplain; liaison with *A.I.M.
*American Indian Movement

Post Script:

In the fairly recent past the BATF (Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco & Firearms), was 'modified' with the word 'Bureau' - the agency was previously known - and identified itself as - 'Alcohol, Tobbaco & Firearms - the 'ATF'.

Just as the initials 'PC' were recently introduced to the American vocabulary: not as 'Partly cloudy', or, 'Personal Computer', but instead, now meaning 'politically correct' - a non-sequiter/oxymoron (self-contradiction) in two words, i.e., enhancing the muddied word of 'politics' with the 'spin-doctored', hyphenated word of 'correct', that is to say, 'political'-correctness'. Likewise, the former self-identified "A.T.F." 'promoted' itself with added term, "Bureau'.
'

Reason for editing:
Addition of Post Script; content, and the noteworthy - however temporary - 'silence', orbiting this inescapable, empirically
documented
post:
fortifying the OP's venerable commencement of what simply proves to be an illuminating thread.

Limedust
08-05-2012, 19:09
The BATFE exists to limit our 2A rights, period. You can spin it however you wish but at its core, that's the truth.

Yup, and the BATF is perfectly justified in doing so according to interpretation of the Second Amendment by SCOTUS in Heller vs D.C..

Jerry
08-05-2012, 19:36
Kool Aid...Kool Aid....get your Kool Aid!!!!!!!!!!!:rofl:

cajun_chooter
08-27-2012, 07:51
:laughabove: :rofl: :director: The ATF is the worst most rouge agency of the federal government and should be done away with. Next youíll tell me they didnít sell guns to the Mexican cartels that were used to kill federal agents. BATF&E makes up the rules as the go along. :honkie:

just who do you think was behind the Fast & Furious scheme ?

Clutch Cargo
10-28-2012, 02:50
Since when does the ATF make laws? Unless the power to make "regulations" is given them by Congress, the regulation is unenforceable.

Also, since when did a government SCREWUP with deadly consequences, be cause to make regulations for the populace at large? Perhaps the regulations should be within their own house instead of mine.

Jerry
10-28-2012, 09:29
Since when does the ATF make laws? Unless the power to make "regulations" is given them by Congress, the regulation is unenforceable.

Also, since when did a government SCREWUP with deadly consequences, be cause to make regulations for the populace at large? Perhaps the regulations should be within their own house instead of mine.

I can't give you dates of when it happened but I can tell you that Congress has "relinquished it's power", granted powers to MAKE UP REGULATIONS to the BATF&E, EPA, TSA and etc. etc. We now have unelected, appointed puppets and renegades MAKING UP REGULATIONS... LAWS enforceable and punishable under penalty fine and or imprisonment.

countrygun
10-28-2012, 14:33
I can't give you dates of when it happened but I can tell you that Congress has "relinquished it's power", granted powers to MAKE UP REGULATIONS to the BATF&E, EPA, TSA and etc. etc. We now have unelected, appointed puppets and renegades MAKING UP REGULATIONS... LAWS enforceable and punishable under penalty fine and or imprisonment.

I keep jumping up and down trying to tell people that things like the open bolt MAC10s were "outlawed" by "executive decision" inside the BATFE because they were "too easily converted to full auto". No law was passed by Congress, no initiative petition, just someone behind a desk saying "make it so" There is no mechanism, other than letters of complaint that put the writer "on the radar", no oversight, no official appeal, no accountability.

All it would take, from Obama, would be a memo to the BATFE chief and suddenly AK-47s would be "too easily converted". Try to tell people that and it falls on deaf ears.

I have mentioned it in a dozen threads and no one even aknowledges reading it.

ergon
01-01-2013, 20:38
This legislation must be stopped at all cost. This nation will not stand for this. As was stated in the Russian newspaper "Pravda". And I quote, " Do not be fooled by a belief that progressives, leftists hate guns. Oh, no, they do not. What they hate is guns in the hands of those who are not marching in lock step of their ideology. They hate guns in the hands of those who think for themselves and do not obey without question. They hate guns in those whom they have slated for a barrel to the back of the ear."

firemax
02-06-2013, 13:58
Please pass this on:SANDY HOOK FATHER OWNS CONGRESS - YouTube

dedron
05-12-2014, 13:33
yep, get rid of the others TOO, along with 90% of the active military. they are just a giant unemployment bureau, average cost of 1/2 million $ per year per person "working" for them. while a million invaders per year are just allowed to cross our southern border! What a crock.

user1
05-26-2014, 09:08
I believe you are right but wrong when you suggest that an Agency of the Executive Branch of the Government of the USA, "does not and cannot unilaterally create and or impose new laws." Congress with approval of the President actually 'make law'. Any agency can promulgate regulations to enforce law or to carry out it's mission, outlined by existing law. Most bureaucrats do what they are told. The lure of steady pay and benefits, and the extreme difficulties about employment termination, or employment security, (take you pick) make whores out of a lot of good men and women. Rights are eroded slowly, inch by inch; until folks wake up one morning to realize they are enslaved; no longer free... The long line of previous peoples and historic civilizations that have disappeared, and continue to disappear, seems to support the notion many, but not you, espouse.

___________________________________________
So since the BATFE is simply requiring FFL's to submit names of those engaging in suspicious purchases so the BATFE can catalog them in a inter-agency database your going to lose your rights to buy a firearm legally, this new policy in no way limits that ability.

As for the title of this thread, the BATFE simply enforces the United States Code, and as an executive agency works to enforce actions of the United States Executive Office, the Presidency. The BATFE does not and cannot unilaterally create and or impose new laws.

What you imagine the BATFE is going to do when it "ratchets up" the restrictions cannot be done by the BATFE or the USDOJ alone.

And finally:


The BATFE simply does not want to do that (I can confidently state that) and is not attempting to create a pretense for it. I can personally assure you that 90%+ of BATFE employees, specifically the Special Agents and people in "management" love and support the 2nd amendment and the legal ownership of firearms as much if not more then you personally do.

I truly apologize if at any point I sounded condescending or rambling, if there is anything else you wish to discuss on this topic just respond. There is a lot of misconceptions about the majority of what the BATFE does and stands for.

As always, stay safe :supergrin:

user1
05-26-2014, 09:15
Please pass this on:SANDY HOOK FATHER OWNS CONGRESS - YouTube (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dhXPlCjr0Vw&sns=em)
___________________________

the sound of the last statement made by this man, before members of Congress, spoke volumes....