ATF, Virginia Police Accused of 'Persecuting' Gun Shows


PDA






Desertdog
August 25, 2005, 04:29 PM
ATF, Virginia Police Accused of 'Persecuting' Gun Shows
By Jeff Johnson
CNSNews.com Senior Staff Writer
http://www.cnsnews.com/ViewSpecialReports.asp?Page=\SpecialReports\archive\200508\SPE20050823a.html

Listen to G. Gordon Liddy's Aug. 23 interview of CNSNews.com's Jeff Johnson

(Clarification: Emphasizes in 12th paragraph that all three Virginia law enforcement agencies referred media inquiries to ATF)

(CNSNews.com) - The federal agency that regulates U.S. gun dealers stands accused, along with at least three Virginia law enforcement agencies, of trying to shut down legal gun shows through alleged intimidation of gun buyers and sellers. The law enforcement organizations also allegedly broke the law by sharing gun buyers' information with members of the public.

Annette Gelles, owner of gun show sponsor Showmasters.us, told Cybercast News Service that at least 30 agents from the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF) along with nearly 500 Virginia State Police, Henrico County Police and Richmond City Police officers were assigned to the ATF operation targeting her gun show on Aug. 13 and 14 at the Richmond International Raceway and Fairground Complex, outside Richmond, Va.

Gelles said four marked police cars were stationed at the main entrance to the raceway parking lot and more than 50 marked and unlabeled but obvious law enforcement vehicles were positioned just outside the public entrance to the building. The officers' presence, Gelles said, was intended to intimidate her customers.

"It's just a persecution thing. It's not really an attempt to solve crimes or stop them," Gelles said. "It's their way of trying to get rid of gun shows. That's the only way you can explain that large a police presence at the gun shows."

Gelles said ATF Resident Agent in Charge Brian Swann told her that the officers were part of a "Virginia State Police, ATF task force" and represented the "same amount of force that we've used in all the shows." The only difference in Gelles' case, Swann told her, was that the command post was established at the site of her gun show.

Virginia State Police (VSP) spokeswoman Corinne Geller told Cybercast News Service that her agency does participate in a task force with ATF and other Virginia law enforcement agencies. As part of the agreement that created the task force, Geller said, VSP agreed to refer questions regarding its operations to ATF.

Richmond Police spokeswoman Kirsten Nelson e-mailed her response to questions about the apparent sting operation.

"I have done some checking and as I said on the phone, the gun show was not in our jurisdiction," Nelson wrote, "so I have no record of our officers' participation."

Gelles said the participation of Richmond Police officers in the operation has already been documented, by Richmond Police officers.

"My own Richmond City Police officers that are there, that I hire for my security purposes, told me that they saw 14 (Richmond City Police officers) on Saturday in plain clothes," Gelles said.

Lt. Doug Perry with Henrico County Police acknowledged that his department's officers took part in the operation, but he would not say how many participated.

"We wouldn't normally release that anyway. That's part of our operational plan, the number of officers involved," Perry said. "We're not on overtime when we're doing that so it wouldn't be public information."

Both Nelson and Perry also referred Cybercast News Service to ATF for more information.

One gun show exhibitor said he counted 72 uniformed and plainclothes officers and agents in and around the vehicles near the entrance to the building. Gelles claimed that an unidentified officer tried to stop the exhibitor from counting the number of law enforcement personnel present, but walked away when the exhibitor refused.

While normal attendance at her two-day show is nearly 4,000, Gelles said she attracted approximately 2,300 the weekend of Aug. 13 and 14, costing Showmasters.us more than $7,000.

'There's no way that's legal'

"They did something else, which is highly illegal," Gelles charged. "They did something called a residency check."

Gelles explained that, when gun dealers took the paperwork to the Virginia State Police on-site office to complete the background checks on prospective buyers, ATF agents copied the names, home addresses and telephone numbers of the applicants.

Philip Van Cleave, president of the Virginia Citizens Defense League, told Cybercast News Service that he has received numerous complaints alleging that as handgun buyers were waiting for their National Instant Check System (NICS) background investigations to be completed, ATF was secretly conducting the so-called "residency checks."

According to the complaints he received, Van Cleave said officers were dispatched to the homes of the prospective gun buyers to speak with family members, asking for example: "Gee, did you know your husband was going to a gun show today? Do you have his cell phone number? Did you know he was buying a gun?

"If people weren't home they, in some cases, went to neighbors" to ask the same questions, Van Cleave said.

"I'm not an attorney but, I'll tell you what, in my opinion that would be a violation of federal law," Van Cleave said. "To go off on a fishing trip with that information, much less sharing information like that with neighbors, there's no way that's legal."

Title 18 Section 923 of the U.S. Code concerns the licensing of gun dealers and appears to support Van Cleave's position. It contains the following restrictions on the information collected during the process of a gun purchase:

"(g)(3)(B) Except in the case of forms and contents thereof regarding a purchaser who is prohibited by [federal law] from receipt of a firearm, the department of State police or State law enforcement agency or local law enforcement agency of the local jurisdiction shall not disclose any such form or the contents thereof to any person or entity, and shall destroy each such form and any record of the contents thereof no more than 20 days from the date such form is received."

VSP's Geller could not comment on the "residency checks," but said the ATF did not get gun buyers' addresses from her agency. "I can assure you, they weren't getting it from our records," Geller said, "because we don't take addresses."

In fact, the "Department of State Police - Virginia Firearms Transaction Record" form asks for the purchaser's name, date of birth, Social Security or driver's license number and citizenship status. No other identifying information, such as addresses or telephone numbers is requested.

But ATF Form 4473, the "Firearms Transaction Record Part I - Over-The-Counter," does request the purchaser's address. Those forms are kept together as part of a "buyer's packet" when the VSP form is submitted for the NICS check.

Erich Pratt, communications director for Gun Owners of America (GOA), told Cybercast News Service that these types of allegations against ATF are exactly why GOA members opposed the NICS background check when it was initially proposed.

"Whenever you force good people to jump through hoops before they exercise their rights, you give rogue bureaucrats a chance to harass decent citizens," Pratt said.

"We have a Bill of Rights because government does not always act in our best interest," he continued. "Rather than being spied upon, the American people should be the ones questioning family members and neighbors - not of gun owners - but of these rogue bureaucrats."

ATF agent allegedly 'got quite rude' with gun show customer

James Lalime, who works part time for a gun dealer, was attending the Richmond show on his own. He had brought two firearms and part of a third from his personal collection to offer for sale at the show, which is legal and does not require a federal firearms license (FFL) or local business license.

Lalime claims a man approached him and verbally identified himself as an ATF agent but did not show his credentials or badge.

"He was accusing me of running a business and telling me that I needed to get a business license if I was going to sell firearms," Lalime charged.

The agent allegedly had state police check Lalime's driver's license and learned that it was suspended. He said he was placed in the back of a police car and questioned by the agent while the suspension was investigated.

"He kept asking me all kinds of questions: 'How often do you buy guns? When do you buy guns? When was the last time you bought a gun? How many guns did you buy the last time you bought guns?'" Lalime continued. "All that is irrelevant and I told him that. I said, 'That's my personal business.'"

Lalime was released when it was learned that his license was valid and the alleged suspension was caused by a computer error. He went back into the gun show and told Gelles about the encounter and she suggested that Lalime get the agent's name.

When he found the agent, who identified himself as Special Agent Brian McComas, Lalime claims McComas tried to intimidate him.

"He said, 'You know you're making a big deal about nothing,' and I said, 'No sir, I am not,'" Lalime explained. "Then he got right in my face, almost touching his chest to mine, in real threatening posture, and said, 'You're making a real big mistake.'"

Lalime claims Swann interrupted the confrontation and the two federal officers walked away. "Once I got over the initial shock, it really made me angry," Lalime said.

ATF is 'out of the residency check business'

Gelles and her attorneys were in Washington, D.C., Aug. 15 to meet with ATF officials and seek an explanation for what happened over the weekend. After talking with several people in the ATF headquarters, Gelles said she finally spoke with a supervisor, whom she would not identify, who assured her that ATF "is out of the residency check business, effective immediately."

She was hesitant to give further details about the meeting in the event that a lawsuit is filed over the agency's actions.

In addition to the $7,000 she said she lost from reduced attendance at the show, Gelles added that she has already spent more than $12,000 in legal fees trying to prevent a repeat of the ATF operation of Aug. 13 and 14 and other previous incidents of what she considers improper agency behavior.

Van Cleave said his groups will be "watching in Virginia with a microscope to make sure that nothing like this ever happens again.

"If they do it again, we'll get active in contacting the ATF, the police and the media," Van Cleave warned. "If they break their word on this and start this crap again, then we will be in touch with the media."

After more than a half-dozen calls by Cybercast News Service seeking comment for this article, an ATF spokesman said the agency was "still gathering information" about the events of Aug. 13 and 14 and would not be able to comment until sometime on Tuesday.

If you enjoyed reading about "ATF, Virginia Police Accused of 'Persecuting' Gun Shows" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!
tulsamal
August 25, 2005, 04:30 PM
There is a truly "massive" thread dealing with this already. Look for "Outrage in Richmond."

Gregg

kbr80
August 25, 2005, 04:32 PM
Van Cleave said his groups will be "watching in Virginia with a microscope to make sure that nothing like this ever happens again. If they do it again, we'll get active in contacting the ATF, the police and the media," Van Cleave warned. "If they break their word on this and start this crap again, then we will be in touch with the media."

:banghead: :banghead:

"After more than a half-dozen calls by Cybercast News Service seeking comment for this article, an ATF spokesman said the agency was "still gathering information" about the events of Aug. 13 and 14 and would not be able to comment until sometime on Tuesday.

Still gathering information, my arse. And it is way past Tuesday.

GhostRider66
August 25, 2005, 04:45 PM
The thread deals with the initial report of this and has gotten quite out of hand. This one deals with an entirely new report and I think should stay independent. (Does my vote count here? ;) )

Double Maduro
August 25, 2005, 04:59 PM
GhostRider66,

While it is a new report, there is no new information in it.

I agree the other thread has gotten out of hand. Maybe this one could deal only with the facts and not the rhetoric?

Maybe we could keep this thread for what is known and not what is believed?

DM

gunsmith
August 25, 2005, 05:08 PM
I tend to trust VCDL though...
I vote for keeping this thread open if we can manage to keep it civil....

Fly320s
August 25, 2005, 08:24 PM
Now that is how a news article should be written. :D

All facts and quotes, with the facts being researched and verified by the author. Plus, I didn't detect any bias on the author's part.

Great job Jeff Johnson and CNSnews. :D :D

cropcirclewalker
August 25, 2005, 09:02 PM
I personally emailed Jeff (the author) asking if he had heard anything from ATF (since it's way past Tuesday) and he responded.

A good guy. (Probably disqualifies him as being in the Managed Media, deigning to talk to a common rabble)

Anyway, he claims to be working on an update. He has been calling ATF repeatedly and still awaits a statement.

publius
August 26, 2005, 05:41 AM
Why won't our employees explain themselves? Why, after all this time, is there still only one source? Shouldn't there be some kind of official word on exactly what they were doing in this operation?

I'm thinking it's time for ALL of us to write our Congresscritters and write the ATF and ask for an explanation of this incident.

BeLikeTrey
August 26, 2005, 09:37 AM
I gave up on the other thread.

I'll make this statement in this thread too...

I noticed everyone said they'd be watching the ATF and seeing what happens. Any one else think that "wait and see" is a mistake? I think we need to use this opportunity to get a legal ruling on a recent and hot issue... Striking while the iron is hot so to speak. "Wait and see" doesn't resolve the abuse it just leaves an opening for another occurrence. I really didn't understand the logic behind VCDL's statements on watching...

The Real Hawkeye
August 26, 2005, 09:58 AM
Wow! Reading that article reminded me of scenes from Enemies Foreign and Domestic. Really frightening. Especially the attempt at intimidation, "Then he got right in my face, almost touching his chest to mine, in real threatening posture, and said, 'You're making a real big mistake.'" Scary stuff, especially coming from a Federal Agent. When an agent of the Federal Government speaks to you in an official capacity like that (Something that would ordinarily warrant a punch in the nose), that's practically the definition of despotism. The Federal Government can ruin your life at a whim, or even make you disappear without any due process. It happens all the time. We definitely need to get rid of this out of control government agency. This needs to be at the top of our list of priorities if we're to preserve any semblance of liberty in this country.

RavenVT100
August 26, 2005, 10:07 AM
In New Jersey, the purchase of even a single firearm involves "everything you see here--" residency check, calls to references and employers, and other intrusive measures.

I'm used to this, and people in my state are apathetic to it. So you can imagine how happy I am to see that people in other states won't put up with this crap.

publius
August 26, 2005, 11:57 AM
Hmm... So New Jersey discriminates against the homeless and the unemployed when it comes to the right to buy arms? How very un-leftist of them. :neener:

RavenVT100
August 26, 2005, 12:32 PM
Hmm... So New Jersey discriminates against the homeless and the unemployed when it comes to the right to buy arms? How very un-leftist of them.

That's correct. Your employer and the address of said employer are requested, at which point the employer will be contacted and asked if it's okay for you to own a gun. Also if you're a racial minority, live with racial minorities, or know people who might be connected with crime (but are of course not a criminal yourself) you will forget about owning firearms here. I have met very few people who are not white who went through the vetting process in NJ and did not suffer some sort of racial discrimination or purpose delay on the part of the police.

Forget what you thought about the Democratic party wanting to empower minorities. That's a bunch of crap. They want to empower them to the point where they'll vote Democrat and after that point all bets are off.

publius
August 26, 2005, 04:39 PM
That explains everything. The AFT agents were visiting Virginia from New Jersey. ;)

hammer4nc
August 26, 2005, 07:16 PM
A general comment: This case illustrates perfectly why MJTF's (multi-jurisdictional task forces) are loved by leos, and also ripe for abuse. When an abuse occurs, the different agencies play the finger pointing game at each other...end result: no one is held responsible.

Likewise, MJTF's usually involve federal grants to local enforcement agencies, so the locals agencies don't have to be accountable to their citizens for expenses incurred on these boondoggles. Hey, posting dozens of officers on an op that yields zip, but is meant to intimidate, is just peachy... if the feds are picking up the tab, right?

R.H. Lee
August 26, 2005, 07:35 PM
Sounds like somebody somewhere is trying to build a 'get tough on crime' rep by attempting to close the 'gun show loophole' which is responsible for 'flooding the streets with dangerous assault weapons that spray bullets at schools' :barf:

Bubbles
August 26, 2005, 07:40 PM
There is a thread on GlockTalk.com (glocktalk.com/showthread.php?s=&postid=4794369#post4794369) where a member has posted pics of documents he received from the VA State Police regarding his FOIA request about this event. Interesting reading.

Even more interesting is that it looks like the "residency checks" have been going on for a year.

cropcirclewalker
August 26, 2005, 08:13 PM
Fact finding, Fact finding.

Like I said in the other string, I am doubting that this Gang Related operation really took place. I searched the Richmond Times Dispatch in what they call their Police Beat or something like that

http://www.timesdispatch.com/servlet/Satellite?pagename=RTD%2FPage%2FRTD_SectionFront&c=Page&cid=1031782497910

from Aug 14 to present and did not see evidence of any arrests for anything related to the gun show. Maybe they are keeping the arrests secret for national security. Maybe VSP arrests don't rate the news in Richmond.

A few posters at GlockTalk above the one pasting the VSP letter showed an obviously photoshopped picture of all the cop cars with a superimposed group photo of some police softball team or something. Including the K9 mascot.

Cute.

How do I know that this VSP letter wasn't photoshopped? Did the worm turn?

I guess now it's my turn......where is the evidence of these alleged arrests?

Managed Media is preferred. Some of youse guys with search skills and findlaw.com and like that should be able to turn up something.

I can tell y'all this much. If they were doing "residency checks" of voters on election day in a democrat precinct there would be hell to pay.

Titus
August 26, 2005, 10:35 PM
Do what I did and head on over to www.vcdl.org (http://www.vcdl.org) and click on that Donate to VCDL link!

Standing Wolf
August 26, 2005, 11:05 PM
Your employer and the address of said employer are requested, at which point the employer will be contacted and asked if it's okay for you to own a gun.

How despicable!

cropcirclewalker
August 26, 2005, 11:20 PM
Cheese.

I yam not asking for evidence of convictions, even though some of these "residency checks" took place many months ago.

I logged onto Glocktalk again for verification. The Jpeg I looked at is gone or I would have linked it here. A new .pdf document replaced it

http://glocktalk.com/attachment.php?postid=4794644

Not counting the most recent "event" in August, page 4 of that document claims 51 arrests arising out of their "residency checks". I have logged onto the atf website and they like to list their accomplishments.

I yam just a dumb a$$ed citizen. Could you, Mr. DMF, or somebody else with skill or access please post a link to where these arrests were fruitful?

43 firearms confiscated. Where is the link with corroboration?

Mr. Double Maduro, where are you when we need you?

Are all of these "address miscreants" down at Gitmo?

makanut
August 26, 2005, 11:30 PM
Your employer will be called and asked if it's ok for you to go to the church of your choice. F******g communists! :cuss:

KLR
August 27, 2005, 07:49 AM
Those records will likely be on file with the U.S. District Court in that district. Get (pay for) access to Lexis-Nexis or Pacer and you can do it from the comfort of your home. Go in person and the research is free.

Titus
August 27, 2005, 10:21 AM
Reading the documents that dbrowne posted, it seems the ATF has a different idea of work-appropriate dress than I was brought up with... Real professional there!

And "Twenty-one individuals were deterred from making purchases due to questioning by Task Force members." I'd like to hear more about that one.

The Real Hawkeye
August 27, 2005, 10:46 AM
Someone should contact Tucker Carlson about this story. He hosts the show The Situation with Tucker Carlson on, I think, CNBC. He is a self described libertarian gun enthusiast, and would probably give some national attention to this story if he is informed of it. Just a thought.

dbrowne1
August 27, 2005, 11:26 AM
"How do I know that this VSP letter wasn't photoshopped?"

Because the originals are sitting on my desk in a file, and I don't have Photoshop?

KLR
August 27, 2005, 11:40 AM
"How do I know that this VSP letter wasn't photoshopped?"

Because the originals are sitting on my desk in a file, and I don't have Photoshop?

And because the result is repeatable. File a FOIA.

kbr80
August 27, 2005, 11:44 AM
"How do I know that this VSP letter wasn't photoshopped?"

So, dbrowne1 takes it upon himself, to do a FOIA, and post the results. The results tell the story, that something happened that should not have happened. Yet, with proof, people start saying it was photoshopped. Unbelievable. :banghead:

KLR
August 27, 2005, 11:50 AM
The documents would seem to indicate that while something happened, it wasn't as sensational as they had hoped. I think people were hoping for a Grassy Knoll/Watergate Break-in type of event.

I tend to like DBrowne1's theory (posted on Glocktalk) that something went awry (perhaps seriously) in the course of a fairly standard operation. I also have to admit liking the fact that his theory is pretty close to the one I proposed in the "outrage" thread.

kbr80
August 27, 2005, 12:13 PM
I have a problem with Resident Checks. That is just wrong. The way they did this operation screams intimidation. What they did, put gun owners in their place, as in "you dont have a right to own/buy a firearm, unless we say so."

cropcirclewalker
August 27, 2005, 12:24 PM
"How do I know that this VSP letter wasn't photoshopped?"

Because the originals are sitting on my desk in a file, and I don't have Photoshop? I see that you have only 2 posts. Welcome

I was playing devil's advocate with the .gov apologists who insist that without Managed Media conformation, the actual live postings of a coerced witness, Mr. SIXPACK had no credibility.

I think we all, now, believe that the event actually took place. In fact it appears from your posted letter that it has been ongoing except this time they screwed up and let people know about it.

Now I want them to justify their costs. It appears that as a result of previous "Operations" they made 51 arrests. Were these arrests fruitful?

How about this last one. How come no news in the local paper about any arrests? Isn't "deterrence by interview" just another way of saying "Intimidation"? Is intimidation in the job description of these guys?

Aparently so, they listed 21 successful "deterrances by interview".

800 man days of labor, works out to 3.2 man years of labor (based on 50, 40 hour weeks per yr, not counting sick days) What is the result of this effort? Who's paying for it? Me? How come I don't see Managed Media reporting the work product? Did it really happen or was it a company paid picnic?

If what this MJTF was doing was legal I woulda thunk that they woulda talked it up.

Stealth law enforcement......Isn't that what the KGB used to do?

KLR
August 27, 2005, 12:26 PM
kbr80- I (obviously) don't have a huge problem with it. Just the checks, mind you, neighbors have no need to know that one is buying a firearm. In my job, I come across so many crimes that are committed because addresses are fudged/falsified, etc. Plus we (gun owners) are under assault because of the idiots that commit crimes with them. I currently have a case going where the bad guy (already a multiple felon) was committing crime X. We also found out that he had a bunch of straw-purchase guns (and seized them). I have insisted that come heck or high water, we aren't going to plea-bargain the felon in possession charges away. Prosecutor agrees, thankfully.

The constitution isn't a ticket to do whatever we want. With every right, there are responsibilities/restrictions. Certain types of speech are still prohibited. You cannot claim religious protection for sexually abusing children. That said, I don't see background checks as a huge burden on my 2nd amendment rights. (registration, however, :cuss: :cuss: ). I see verifying residency information (in a discrete fashion) as acceptable. As said above, asking my neighbors- whoa there, partner! That is a problem.

kbr80
August 27, 2005, 12:33 PM
That said, I don't see background checks as a huge burden on my 2nd amendment rights. (registration, however, ). I see verifying residency information (in a discrete fashion) as acceptable.


There is problem with that, IMO. Do the agencies doing the CHECKS destroy the information after a check? Do they catalog the info and make a list for future crimes in that area? We all remember the sniper stories of agents going to the doors of citizens with info and 4473's in hand to talk to them. I understand rights come with responsibility, but if you place a restriction on a right, it is no longer a right, it becomes a regulated privilege. I have a problem with what happened, resident checks are not right, and they are ripe for abuse and civil rights violations.

KLR
August 27, 2005, 12:45 PM
There is problem with that, IMO. Do the agencies doing the CHECKS destroy the information after a check? Do they catalog the info and make a list for future crimes in that area? We all remember the sniper stories of agents going to the doors of citizens with info and 4473's in hand to talk to them.
I don't know. I do know there is a prohibition on creating a de-facto national registry of firearms.


I understand rights come with responsibility, but if you place a restriction on a right, it is no longer a right, it becomes a regulated privilege.
I know I am parsing your words a bit, but how is that a restriction on your 2nd amendment rights? If anything, it would be a violation of your privacy, which, as Cropcirclewalker will point out, only exists in the "penumbra" :D .

Double Maduro
August 27, 2005, 12:46 PM
KLR,

I currently have a case going where the bad guy (already a multiple felon) was committing crime X. We also found out that he had a bunch of straw-purchase guns (and seized them). I have insisted that come heck or high water, we aren't going to plea-bargain the felon in possession charges away.

Isn't this elligible for federal trial?
Aren't the federal penalties sticter? Parole, plea bargaining etc. much tighter?

DM

KLR
August 27, 2005, 12:50 PM
DM-

Never said it wasn't federal. Take a look at my profile. I just used "plea-bargain" (a phrase typically used in state and local courts) rather than Rule 11 Plea Agreement.

Kim
August 27, 2005, 12:53 PM
Good grief. We have the ACLU and hundreds of city counsils passing a resolution and filing lawsuits agaist the government because they might go and look at your library records in the coarse of investigating possible terrorist activity. Here we have the Feds and STate police going to peoples homes to investigate if an address is correct on a form without ANY cause and some here just say OK. Mind you going to a government library and using government facilities is not a constitutional right but buying a firearms sure is. This was outragous,stupid and unnecessary. Where is the ACLU. When are we going to see the protestors. When is the National Association of Gun Show Peoples going to file a press release condeming this activity. How about a National Press Club Gripe speech. When is John Conyers going to call for a Resolution agaist this assault on the citizens civil rights. When is the NRA going to run a commercial about this showing the marking out of the second amendment or the tearing up of the BOR. Nope YOU WONT SEE ANY OF THESE THINGS.

Double Maduro
August 27, 2005, 12:59 PM
KLR,

Cool, I hope you put him away for a long time.

With most of the violent crime being done by repeat offenders, it is hard for many of us to understand why they keep being released.

DM

kbr80
August 27, 2005, 01:02 PM
I know I am parsing your words a bit, but how is that a restriction on your 2nd amendment rights?


"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."

That is what my right is. It does not say anything about resident checks, what area of town I live it. It does not say: "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms shall not be infringed, except for resident checks."

KLR
August 27, 2005, 01:10 PM
Cool, I hope you put him away for a long time.
Working on it! :D

With most of the violent crime being done by repeat offenders, it is hard for many of us to understand why they keep being released.
Well, part of the problem is that sentences aren't sequential. If you commit two crimes one with a 72 month sentence cap, and one with a 24 month cap, it doesn't equal 96 months for the two together. You are more likely to end up closer to the top end of the higher sentence. There are also enhancements for multiple crimes, but they still don't add as much as if you added all of the sentences together.

The issues with the justice system are numerous but it is still better than every other nation out there.

cropcirclewalker
August 27, 2005, 01:10 PM
I know I am parsing your words a bit, but how is that a restriction on your 2nd amendment rights? If anything, it would be a violation of your privacy, which, as Cropcirclewalker will point out, only exists in the "penumbra" Powers to create alpahbet agencies reside somewhere in the penumbra.

Rights (non enumerated) are covered in amendment 9Article [IX.]

The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people. Then the amendment which prohibits .gov from dreaming up alphabet agencies resides in amendment 10Article [X.]

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people. That is the one that the penumbra makes moot :p

Somebody should make .gov employees pass a test about the constitution. :cool: :rolleyes: :)

Oh, yes, I keep looking at your location........Is there some allergy that New Hampsherpers get when they move to the midwest? :confused:

KLR
August 27, 2005, 01:16 PM
Amendment I

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

There is a lot that is not stated above, yet they are not absolute rights.

publius
August 27, 2005, 01:18 PM
That said, I don't see background checks as a huge burden on my 2nd amendment rights. (registration, however, ). I see verifying residency information (in a discrete fashion) as acceptable.It's easier to stop believing in those forms of gun control lite if you remember that they are going to accomplish nothing, other than wasting taxpayer dollars.

Look at the bad guy in your story (who makes me wonder what crime X was, anyway). Multiple felon, multiple guns. Just like every other multiple felon who wants multiple guns. We can pile up papers to the sky and send a discrete car past every lawful gun buyer's house, and still that would be true.

JohnBT
August 27, 2005, 01:23 PM
"it wasn't as sensational as they had hoped"

It was sensational enough that when called on it they promised not to do it again and didn't put up a fight.

I have a feeling the fallout from this is just starting.

John in Richmond
Member www.vcdl.org
NRA Life Member

KLR
August 27, 2005, 01:29 PM
Cropcirclewalker-

I was making a constitutional law joke. A SCOTUS decision on a topic we don't want to get into (starts with "abo"), said that the right to privacy existed in the penumbra. By invoking privacy rather than 2nd amendment, it got us to the penumbra.

Just to refresh your memory, you and I had the following exchange in the Drega thread (the >>'s indicate what I quoted you on):

>>Finally, there are 18 things that are allowed by the constitution that Congress can do. (Article 1 section 8) I don't know which agency you are in. Is it covered in Article 1 section 8? (postal service comes immediatly to mind)<<
It has been years since I took any constitutional law and I don't have a JD after my name. Most of the analysis I can find on the 10th amendment deals with restrictions on the federal government directing the states to do things (speed limits, etc). I haven't seen anything to indicate that there has been a successful challenge to the very existence of government agencies. Since SCOTUS hasn't seen fit to grant certiorari and rule against, say, social security, I find it hard to accept social security, medicare, etc. as unconstitutional. There could very well be challenges out there that I am unaware of.

Oh, the sniff is because I would rather be home than here.

Publius- not telling what the underlying crimes were. I don't reveal what agency I work for.

Kim
August 27, 2005, 01:43 PM
KLR----------Do some investigation on the net about how SS got past the USSC. It was a very planned way to make it constitutional. SS is not what you think it is. It was passed in two different laws that are not connected. They had found they could get another of the NEW DEAL legislation past the USSC this way. Kinda like they found the USSC would let them pass gun control under the guise of taxes.(NFA) That is also an interesting read. The Attorney General at the time knew it was unconstitutional to pass gun control so he came up with a tax law. :scrutiny:

DMF
August 27, 2005, 01:46 PM
Look at the bad guy in your story (who makes me wonder what crime X was, anyway). Multiple felon, multiple guns. Just like every other multiple felon who wants multiple guns. We can pile up papers to the sky and send a discrete car past every lawful gun buyer's house, and still that would be true.Why does everyone go back to this same ridiculous argument? Just because it's against the law for felons to possess firearms and ammunition, and some some still get them does not mean the law is ineffective. Murder is against the law, people still commit murder. Identity theft is against the law, people still commit ID theft. Etc, Etc, Etc. Are you proposing that because those acts are illegal, but some people still commit them that murder, ID theft, etc, should not be illegal?

No law, in and of itself prevents a crime. It exists so the crime can be punished if committed. Proper enforcement of the law is what helps prevent crime. Regarding felons in possession, I can tell you from experience, many felons will go to great lengths to avoid a felon in possession charge. They know the penalties are stiff, and they know in most federal districts the law is enforced. The law has a huge deterrant factor for felons.

DMF
August 27, 2005, 01:48 PM
Like I said over on GT, thanks dbrowne1 for getting those documents.

However, for all those who say this is proof of something - it is, but only that LE was working to investigate gun crimes, nothing more. I saw nothing in those documents that would support any allegations of "abuse" during that operation.

cropcirclewalker
August 27, 2005, 01:50 PM
The constitution isn't a ticket to do whatever we want. With every right, there are responsibilities/restrictions. Certain types of speech are still prohibited. You cannot claim religious protection for sexually abusing children. This is not thread drift.

It needs to be repeated as often as necessary. The constitution is NOT about the people.

The constitution is an operating manual which empowers the Federal .gov to do a few things, which powers have been given up by the people to facilitate a union of sovereign states.

People get NO rights from the constitution. The people are BORN with all the rights they can imagine. The constitution was intended to be chains, a leash as it were on .gov to keep it from going awry.

Those chains have been broken. There is nothing in the constitution which authorizes even the existance of ATF, let alone background checks.

The intimidating tactics (deterrance by questioning) are wrong. ATF, once they got caught at it, have claimed (claimed) that they will cease. Even the ATF knows these "Residency Checks" are wrong.

Doing a background check is a power which belongs to the state, or the people.

DMF
August 27, 2005, 02:06 PM
Regarding the Constitutionality of Fed LE agencies, I suggest reading this discussion: http://thehighroad.org/showthread.php?t=135122&highlight=publius

You will notice publius makes some interesting arguments, but quickly gives up on arguing whether the existence of fed LE is un-Constitutional, and moves to arguing whether specific laws are un-Constitutional. Which was originally my point:
Post 12:
We can debate all day long whether certain laws are or are not Constitutional, (all though Article III really gives that power to the Court, and Article V gives us the power to change that) however there is NOTHING in the Constitution, which prohibits the federal government from enforcing the laws it passes. If Congress passes the law, and it withstands review by the courts, then the federal government is able to enforce it. If you want to change that, I again refer you to Article V of the Constitution.Later from publius:
Post 18:
Obviously, they have the power to enforce any law they have the power to pass.

Please read the whole thread as publius, myself, and others had a great deal to say on the subject.

Kim
August 27, 2005, 02:08 PM
DMF--------are the FEDS just investigating terrorist crimes when they may ask for library records. What crimes were these police agencies investigating. What information did they have that a crime had been committed. Or were they just fishing. I really do not want police on my property fishing for a crime. :scrutiny:

dbrowne1
August 27, 2005, 02:39 PM
How come no news in the local paper about any arrests?

I have no idea - you should perhaps ask the Richmond Times-Dispatch or the Henrico Citizen that question. I have all the arrest/charge stats for each of the prior operations, which came with my FOIA request. There were arrests made at each show for various crimes. Unless the VSP just made it all up.

I can tell you that arrest info is available online in both Henrico and City of Richmond, at their respective government websites. Based on that info, it would seem impossible to cover every arrest made, as there are dozens of them on a daily basis. You're talking about a metro area with probably close to or more than a million people.

cropcirclewalker
August 27, 2005, 02:48 PM
Ok, I read the whole string. Post #23 tack drove the nail on it's head.

You lost the argument. :p

You further double click verified my assertion that the chains binding .gov have been broken.

I can see in my mind, George Washington, the president at the time, riding out at the head of a called up militia back in 1794 to go and quell the "Whiskey Rebellion" which you used in your arguments.

Better luck next time. :D

cropcirclewalker
August 27, 2005, 03:06 PM
So I googled Henrico County VA arrest records and came up with a link

http://randolph.co.henrico.va.us/publicdb/searcharrest.asp

I don't know if the above link will take you directly to what I got, but I searched for 08/14/2005 to 08/16/2005
Weapons category (1500)
0 Unknown type of crime: No Records Found :scrutiny:
2660 All Federal Violations: No Records Found :confused:

:(

KLR
August 27, 2005, 03:40 PM
Cropcirclewalker:

Ok, I read the whole string. Post #23 tack drove the nail on it's head.

You lost the argument.

that post by tyme reads:

DMF, let me see if I've got this straight...

If Congress passes, the President signs, and the courts refuse to review or review and find a piece of legislation constitutional, that legislation is constitutional?

If Congress passes, the President signs, and the courts review and find a piece of legislation unconstitutional, that legislation is unconstitutional?

Pretty Much.

The Founders were clear that they believed any government, even their newly formed government, could run off its tracks and become tyrannical even while following proper procedures. You effectively ignore this concern.

Founders created a government of checks and balances in order to avoid abuses. The phrase "More Perfect Union" refers to a government with all of it's requisite parts. Had they felt that ANY government could completely run off it's tracks they probably would have included a doomsday provision to chuck the whole thing i.e. right to armed rebellion. They did not.

To consider all legislation constitutional if it's passed and found constitutional by the Courts is to say that the Constitution only places procedural limitations on the government. What gives you the right to decide that the Constitution's procedural limitations must be followed, but not the substantive limitations (limitations on power to those abilities specifically granted)?

DMF was not determining those limitations. The govt. set up by the constitution is.

You would have no problem with reinstitution of slavery as long as the three branches were complicit? What about legislation reinstituting the prohibition without repassage of the 18th amendment? If Congress were to vote itself a retroactive pay raise and the Courts did nothing, would that be constitutional? How flagrantly does the text of the Constitution have to be violated before you stand up and reject what's going on as unconstitutional regardless of what the Courts say? Or would you wait until the Guardians are going house to house arresting people who post to THR? At that point, would you turn yourself in, or would you go into hiding while writing in to your newly-government-controlled local newspaper, explaining anonymously to others the error of your ways and encouraging them to obey the new government?

Stupid example. So, what are the alternatives to SCOTUS review and/or amendment? Rebellion? Where is replacing the government by insurrection covered? Must have missed that article.

Cropcirclewalker:
You profess to love the constitution but base your argument on a post that gave situations in which the only alternative for change would be actions outside of the process in the constitution.

Look, the constitution defines how constitutionality is determined. Period. We can disagree on the wisdom of those decisions, but that doesn't change what the constituion says.

My advice:
Embrace the pain, spank your inner moppet, but get over it.

cropcirclewalker
August 27, 2005, 04:28 PM
Mr. KLR, I yam sure that Mr. tyme would be happy to read what you said about his example. Not very High Road.

It is becoming clear to me that you terminally afflicted with blind obediance to the state. Maybe your alegiance would change with a RIF, who knows?

If you are unable to see that the chains are busted then there is nothing I can do to help you. You do, however provide me with the board upon which to bounce my statements. Maybe some of the rest of them out there reading this will recognize the truth, so all is not lost.

Thank you.

I am unfamiliar with the "inner moppet" jargon. If it's the same thing as a monkey Art's gramma would be frowning. :eek:

KLR
August 27, 2005, 04:33 PM
If you look up the inner moppet quote, you will find it comes from the character Cordelia on Buffy the Vampire Slayer.

CARRY'IN
August 27, 2005, 04:40 PM
Your employer and the address of said employer are requested, at which point the employer will be contacted and asked if it's okay for you to own a gun.

Oh, that is not right at all. I didnt know they did that. That has GOT to be way freakin illegal and if that really happened then those feds need to be punished severely. Scary Scary stuff.

publius
August 27, 2005, 05:50 PM
Why does everyone go back to this same ridiculous argument? Just because it's against the law for felons to possess firearms and ammunition, and some some still get them does not mean the law is ineffective. Murder is against the law, people still commit murder. Identity theft is against the law, people still commit ID theft. Etc, Etc, Etc. Are you proposing that because those acts are illegal, but some people still commit them that murder, ID theft, etc, should not be illegal?

Comparing laws against murder to the "necessity" for background and residency checks on gun buyers seems a little far fetched to me. I'm proposing that we not bother sending out a cop to check out the residency of gun buyers, because I think it costs a lot of money and is likely to yield little in the way of useful results.

Maybe the law deters felons from owning firearms, or at least from getting caught with them, but there sure seem to be a lot of them out there with guns.
You will notice publius makes some interesting arguments, but quickly gives up on arguing whether the existence of fed LE is un-Constitutional
I never argued any such thing. I've argued that specific agencies (notably ATF and DEA) are enforcing unconstitutional laws, but I've never argued that the feds couldn't have an enforcement arm for, say, customs laws.

You tend to give up these discussions before answering my main question on the issue: do you agree more with Scalia (http://straylight.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/03-1454.ZC.html) or Thomas (http://straylight.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/03-1454.ZD1.html)?

DMF
August 27, 2005, 06:08 PM
You tend to give up these discussions before answering my main question on the issue: do you agree more with Scalia or Thomas?No you just don't like my answer. From the aforementioned thread:
Your sloppy attempts at baiting me are ridiculous. Read the Constitution.

Then there is this:
I never argued any such thing.Post number 4 of the aforementioned thread shows that to be different. You know the one where you said Customs was created to regulate interstate commerce. http://thehighroad.org/images/smilies/fce32f95.gif

KLR
August 27, 2005, 06:08 PM
Carry'in, you wrote:

Quote:
Your employer and the address of said employer are requested, at which point the employer will be contacted and asked if it's okay for you to own a gun.

Oh, that is not right at all. I didnt know they did that. That has GOT to be way freakin illegal and if that really happened then those feds need to be punished severely. Scary Scary stuff.

If you go back, the poster you quoted was talking about the lunacy that rears it's head when you try to buy a firearm in New Jersey (I have heard stories :banghead: ). That post had nothing to do with the gun show.

Your post makes it seem (I may be wrong) that you are linking the two issues.

KLR
August 27, 2005, 06:18 PM
Cropcirclewalker:

I would be happy to engage tyme on his argument. Personally I think he has found what could potentially be a hole in our system and confuses what is best described as the letter of the law vs. the intent. I doubt the founders ever intended the bill of rights to be overturned by the amendment process. Could it theoretically happen? Perhaps. Just as a return to slavery would be morally reprehensible, but by definition, if somehow the amendment process led to it, it would, by definition, be constitutional. Wrong and evil, but constitutional.

The scenario he creates (slavery) is only slighly more likely than enough states (three fourths) signing on to amend the constitution to read that Lord Moonbat of planet Zylon is our one true deity.

cropcirclewalker
August 27, 2005, 06:24 PM
Cheese, I was awaiting some kind of response to Publius' question. Now, I guess I gotta go read the constitution. :rolleyes:

I was expecting the answer to be Scalia (since his was the majority)

Hey, how about the Kelo ? decision, you know the eminent domain case?

Did they do that one right too? :confused:

I gotta go ride my bicycle.

CARRY'IN
August 27, 2005, 06:41 PM
the poster you quoted was talking about the lunacy that rears it's head when you try to buy a firearm in New Jersey (I have heard stories ). That post had nothing to do with the gun show.

Sorry.

publius
August 27, 2005, 06:45 PM
Post number 4 of the aforementioned thread shows that to be different. You know the one where you said Customs was created to regulate interstate commerce.
Huh? Is this some kind of sloppy attempt at baiting?
I said (well, actually, Article 1 Section 8 said):
Congress has the power to regulate commerce among the states, with foreign nations, and with Indian tribes. They're going to need regulators to regulate, so they created the US Customs Service.

"Read the Constitution" is no more an answer to my question about two different SCOTUS opinions than "Read the Bible" is. Which one do you think the Constitution supports? Which one do you think Madison (http://thomas.loc.gov/home/histdox/fed_45.html) intended when he wrote it?

The powers delegated by the proposed Constitution to the federal government are few and defined. Those which are to remain in the State governments are numerous and indefinite. The former will be exercised principally on external objects, as war, peace, negotiation, and foreign commerce; with which last the power of taxation will, for the most part, be connected. The powers reserved to the several States will extend to all the objects which, in the ordinary course of affairs, concern the lives, liberties, and properties of the people, and the internal order, improvement, and prosperity of the State.

KLR
August 27, 2005, 06:49 PM
CARRY'IN: just be glad you don't live in NJ. Oddly enough, I think CA is easier when it comes to obtaining firearms. You have more restrictions on what you can have, but it is a pain in the rump to even get granted permission to own them in NJ.

No personal experience with NJ, but a good friend has.

spartacus2002
August 27, 2005, 07:08 PM
And yet another thread is trashed by "you said"// "no YOU said" that could be taken care of via PMs....

KLR
August 27, 2005, 07:19 PM
Well Spartacus- you can either PM the folks who you think are out of line and give them a good comeuppance, or become a moderator.

I personally have no problem with airing these issues in this manner. You also have the option of adding DMF, Cropcirclewalker, me, and anyone else you desire to your ignore list.

Isn't this your first post in the thread? How are you contributing, other than expressing your displeasure with the rest of us?

publius
August 27, 2005, 08:28 PM
Had they felt that ANY government could completely run off it's tracks they probably would have included a doomsday provision to chuck the whole thing i.e. right to armed rebellion. They did not.
I thought that's what the 2nd amendment was about. They certainly felt they had a right to armed rebellion, and they exercised it. Why would Jefferson say something like this:
“Rightful liberty is unobstructed action according to our will within limits drawn around us by the equal rights of others. I do not add ‘within the limits of the law’ because law is often but the tyrant’s will, and always so when it violates the rights of the individual.” Thomas Jefferson

KLR
August 27, 2005, 08:42 PM
Publius-

When did Jefferson write that?

Wasn't Jefferson serving as the Ambassador to France during the convention?

The second amendment might have been looked at in the way you describe.

I am not saying that you are doing so, however: I find it odd to simultaneously bemoan perceived violations of the constitution while saying that the system laid out in the constitution is flawed because it could produce a bad result. I am also not hearing any alternatives. Assuming 3/4 of the states signed on to a return to slavery, then what? I am sorry to say that the alternative is a government change not covered in the constitution.

We had to destroy the village to save it.

publius
August 27, 2005, 09:00 PM
I'll have to look up the Jefferson citation. I just got that from my little collection. In any case, the 2nd most definitely WAS looked at as enabling armed rebellion against the feds. Over and over in the Federalist Papers you can find references to the superiority of the militias to any possible federal force, and how that was a necessary check on federal power. Hamilton in particular was big on that idea.
I find it odd to simultaneously bemoan perceived violations of the constitution while saying that the system laid out in the constitution is flawed because it could produce a bad result. I am also not hearing any alternatives.
You've missed my argument, which is that some of the results by the Court have been flawed, and have not followed the intent of the founders. For example, in my opinion, Wickard vs Filburn, and later, Gonzalez vs Raich. On that latter one, I tend to agree more with Thomas (http://straylight.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/03-1454.ZD1.html) than the liberal 4 and Scalia (http://straylight.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/03-1454.ZC.html). How about yourself? Got an opinion on that one?

Want an alternative? Vote for politicians who will appoint judges who will hold the government to its constitutional limits.

KLR
August 27, 2005, 09:34 PM
Publius-

Tough call. I can see both sides (I should after reading each 3 times). Looking globally- can a purely intrastate medical MJ industry effect interstate commerce? I am inclined to think yes, it can. Regardless of whether you think interstate regulation of narcotics is allowable, having both present in state could create significant enforcement problems. It could create a market of diverting medical MJ out of the state, etc.

Again, we aren't looking solely at the case in question. We are looking at the overall effect of medical MJ.

Is the majority decision a stretch of Necessary and Proper? - seems like.

Preacherman
August 27, 2005, 09:45 PM
If we could please stop the thread drift and get back to the point under discussion... :rolleyes:

I think that an address check, conducted in a proper manner, is nothing to be worried about, and is certainly permissible under the law. However, the way in which these checks were allegedly performed, with agents and/or police officers going to neighbor's homes and employers, and revealing the fact that the person concerned was buying a firearm, is - if true - clearly a breach of Federal laws and regulations, as well as a breach of one's right to privacy. If such allegations can be proved, I think that criminal prosecution and civil suits should follow. I would certainly launch such a suit myself, if I found that anyone had conducted themselves in this way about me.

BTW, KLR, welcome to THR! (How's that for initials? :D ). Being a Fed myself (BOP - more initials!), it's good to have you on board.

Cacique500
August 27, 2005, 09:48 PM
However, for all those who say this is proof of something - it is, but only that LE was working to investigate gun crimes, nothing more. I saw nothing in those documents that would support any allegations of "abuse" during that operation.

http://www.1911pistolgrips.com/img/miscwebpics/giant_rolleyes.gif

...and by the way, can we PLEASE keep this on topic? If you want to debate the Constitution please start another thread!

KLR
August 27, 2005, 10:03 PM
Thanks Preacherman- been very happy over here. :D You also summarized my position pretty well.

Point taken- enough fencing on the Conn Law issues. Thank you for putting it in a polite matter, too. :D

cropcirclewalker
August 27, 2005, 10:11 PM
On my bicycle ride I pondered the quandary of how seemingly honorable employees of .gov could rationalize doing unconstitutional deeds. I came to the conclusion there is a balance that must be maintained by them in order to keep their jobs.

This is a pro gun forum. When some of our .gov employees say that 2a permits reasonable restrictions it is because they are faced with the choice between quitting over principle or rationalizing that if the supremes let some of these laws stand, then they must be OK.

They say to themselves, "locking up this guy because he made a false statement on a 4473 seems wrong, since there should be no infringement in the first place. The 4473 should not even exist." (Kitten stompers don't apply here)

This is all a defense mechanism which allows them to sleep nights.

Their personal opinions (which are probably correct) are fallible.

Mortals are fallible. Thus they will permit the opinions of the supremes to reign, since, the supremes are infallible.

Trouble is, the supremes are mortal and just like a million monkeys with a million typewriters will eventually type the works of Shakespeare, the supremes will eventually make a mistake. Can you say, "Dred Scott?"

I try to believe that ATF does not LOOK for agents that like to stomp kittens, but that a few slip through the psych testing. I like to believe that .gov employees are trying to do a good job and when faced with the obvious contradictions between law and the constitution they rationalize and say to themselves, "Hey, the supremes said it was OK."

I am essentially an unemployable person. I have quit more than 2 jobs over my perception of my employers non ethical activities. I, however, am blessed to be in a line of work which permits me to be self employed.

.gov employees which have mouths to feed and bills to pay have to make the choice between what is constitutional and what is extraconstitutional and when the 2 collide, they let the supremes take the heat.

Although I understand WHY they do it, I will not let them off the hook.

Like in Article 92 of the UCMJ, just because it's an order doesn't mean it has to be obeyed. They gotta decide whether it's lawful. It's their DUTY to disobey an unlawful order.

Trouble is...there is nothing in .gov rules which permit or require disobeying the orders just because they are unconstitutional. They have a tough row to hoe. I understand.

I could never be a .gov employee. I could not sell my soul for a buck.

Flame away.

KLR
August 27, 2005, 10:14 PM
Must . . . not . . . get . . . sucked . . . in! :D

It's all good.

cropcirclewalker
August 27, 2005, 10:23 PM
Hi, ho, Mr. Preacherman.

Sorry, I thought about starting a string about fallibility of the supremes, but since this string has been so corrupted, I thought it would be OK.

You posted your chastizement while I was typing or I woulda done so.

:o

cropcirclewalker
August 27, 2005, 11:26 PM
I do hereby withdraw my apology.

My post about the perception of LEOs to the lawfullness of "residency checks" because the supremes haven't prohibited it is right on topic.

I further repeat my statement that if LEOs were doing "residency checks" of voters in Democrat precincts on election day there would be Hell to pay.

I used to have a FFL. There is no provision in law for LEOs to perform a "residency check" as a part of NICS. When a firearm purchaser presents a .gov issued ID to the dealer showing physical address etal, the mission of NICS is to verify that the purchaser is a good guy.

If it was a fake ID, it would show up in the NICS check. If not, it is a failure of the process of issueing .gov ID.

I have to conclude that gun show "residency check" is nothing other than pure intimidation. Not called for or permitted by 2A.

1 % truth, 99% poetry. Somebody, at least, needs to get fired.

DMF
August 27, 2005, 11:33 PM
cropcirclewalker, let's be clear about a few things:

I've formally sworn an oath to support and defend the Constitution of the United States, no less than six times, as part of my service in the military, and federal law enforcement. Not once, did any of those oaths require me to swear I would follow orders. I have only sworn to to support and defend the Constitution.

In over a decade of service to my country, I have never once done anything that violated my oath, and I never will - not in the military, not in LE.

I don't rationalize my work, I do it sincerely, I do it with dedication and hardwork, and I most certainly do it with a completely clear conscience. EVERYTHING I do at work is with the goal of supporting and defending the Constitution of the United States.

Finally, I don't do my job for money - I left a much higher paying job for the one I have now.

I know you despise the very existence of what I do, and by extension despise me, but don't insult me with your dime store psychology, because your theories are a bunch of lies.

KLR
August 27, 2005, 11:38 PM
Cropcirclewalker:
You have gone from mildly amusing to insulting. :barf:

DMF +1.

cropcirclewalker
August 27, 2005, 11:49 PM
Thank God for providing the founders with the intelligence to recognize the importance of including the 1st amendment.

As I said before, flame away.

Don Gwinn
August 28, 2005, 12:14 AM
Yeah, no, I don't think we need to see where this goes from here. Thanks anyway.

If you enjoyed reading about "ATF, Virginia Police Accused of 'Persecuting' Gun Shows" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!