Privacy guaranteed - Your email is not shared with anyone.

It really is happening: ATF imposing new laws

Discussion in 'Important Gun Control Info' started by nelsone, Jul 12, 2011.

  1. nelsone

    nelsone rank amateur

    Apr 10, 2008
    Beaverton Oregon
    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.

    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!
  2. Gunnut 45/454

    Gunnut 45/454

    Jun 20, 2002

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

  3. 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:
  4. dogchild


    Apr 17, 2011
    This link should take you to an update
  5. 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.
    Last edited: Jul 18, 2011
  6. Jerry

    Jerry Staff Member Moderator Millennium Member

    Dec 21, 1998

    :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:
    Last edited: Jul 18, 2011
  7. 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 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
    Last edited: Jul 18, 2011
  8. Jerry

    Jerry Staff Member Moderator Millennium Member

    Dec 21, 1998
    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. Here’s just one ATF has done recently. .. 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 isn’t making mistakes they are doing what they do deliberately.
  9. Mister_Beefy

    Mister_Beefy Legal & Proper

    Apr 19, 2011
    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

    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.


    May 24, 2006
    Who Dat Nation

    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.
    Last edited: Jul 19, 2011
  11. 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.

    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: .

    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.
    Last edited: Jul 19, 2011
  12. Spats McGee

    Spats McGee

    Oct 19, 2010
    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.

    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.

    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.
  13. 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.
  14. Spats McGee

    Spats McGee

    Oct 19, 2010
    For clarity of my response, I've rearranged your post a little.

    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.

    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.
    Last edited: Jul 19, 2011
  15. 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.

    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.

    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.
  16. cowboywannabe

    cowboywannabe you savvy?

    Jan 26, 2001
    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.
  17. Spats McGee

    Spats McGee

    Oct 19, 2010
    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.

    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.

    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.

    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?
    Last edited: Jul 20, 2011
  18. OldCurlyWolf


    Aug 7, 2010
    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.
  19. 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?

    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.
    Last edited: Jul 19, 2011