ATF on the prowl


PDA






LT1coupe
August 7, 2007, 09:13 PM
I recieved a letter from a private gun dealer I had bought a few guns from in TX. The ATF has apparently been visiting a bunch of private dealers & combing through their paperwork looking for ANY errors. I was told they have shut down a few already.

If you enjoyed reading about "ATF on the prowl" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!
deadin
August 7, 2007, 09:18 PM
What in heavens name is a "private dealer"? Is that like being just a little bit pregnant?:confused:

General Geoff
August 7, 2007, 09:32 PM
C&R perhaps..

RNB65
August 7, 2007, 09:41 PM
No surprise. The ATF has been trying to put private dealers out of business for years. Increasing the FFL fee, requiring a place of business, combing thru paperwork looking for small errors. All are tactics the ATF have been using to drive private dealers under.

Im283
August 7, 2007, 10:51 PM
Does ATF do the same thing to liquor stores and quickie marts?

Why is there and ATF? Shouldn't they just be "F" ?

Never hear about them doing anything unless it involves guns.

Junkyard Dog
August 7, 2007, 11:16 PM
Reds Trading Post seems to come to my mind. I think that they are still
getting the gestapo tactics from the ATF. Someone correct me in I am wrong.

joab
August 7, 2007, 11:21 PM
Never hear about them doing anything unless it involves guns.They're always in the news here with the selling beer and cigarettes to minors stings

Gator
August 7, 2007, 11:32 PM
There is no such thing as a "private dealer", either you have an FFL or you don't. ATF comb through dealers paperwork on a regular basis; all dealers know this and had better have all their t's crossed and i's dotted.

LT1coupe
August 7, 2007, 11:54 PM
That's what we've always reffered to an individual with an FFL that is not affiliated with a particular store or shop.

deadin
August 7, 2007, 11:58 PM
A dealer is a dealer. Doesn't matter if it's a storefront or a basement, they all have to follow the same rules and face the same scrutiny.

RPCVYemen
August 8, 2007, 12:06 AM
ATF comb through dealers paperwork on a regular basis;

And pharmacists have to keep track of the drugs they sell, and their paperwork is "combed through" regularly, as well as people dealing with various kinds of chemicals.

It seems to me that if you don't like paperwork (or are incompetent at paperwork), you shouldn't be in the FFL business, or the pharmacy business, or a host of other businesses.

All are tactics the ATF have been using to drive private dealers under.

If you ran a pharmacy, and your inventory came up short a couple of pounds of cocaine, would you expect the DEA to accept, "Oh, it's really just a clerical error by some of my employees, or maybe some it was stolen? Who knows?"

Mike

Zundfolge
August 8, 2007, 12:12 AM
A dealer is a dealer. Doesn't matter if it's a storefront or a basement, they all have to follow the same rules and face the same scrutiny.
Yes the have to abide by the same rules, but no, the level of scrutiny is significantly greater on Type 01 FFLs that do not have a storefront.

Clinton put most of the "kitchen table dealers" (which is what I assume a "private FFL" is) out of business, but not all of them ... the ATF is continuing his policies of harassment of these FFLs.

And pharmacists have to keep track of the drugs they sell, and their paperwork is "combed through" regularly, as well as people dealing with various kinds of chemicals.
True, but the DEA isn't actively trying to shut down legitimate, law abiding pharmacies. The ATF is trying to reduce the number of firearms dealers (and I believe their goal is to reduce the number to zero).

The ATF has an internal culture of furthering the cause of gun control by any means they can get away with. They're trying to do an end run around the legislature and the Constitution and implement gun control by eliminating the civilian firearms industry.

RNB65
August 8, 2007, 12:37 AM
There is no such thing as a "private dealer"

Call it what you will, but there is a difference between dealers with a storefront and those with no store front. The ATF may not formally draw a distinction between the two, but they certainly treat them differently and actions speak louder than words.

Kilgor
August 8, 2007, 01:55 AM
If you ran a pharmacy, and your inventory came up short a couple of pounds of cocaine, would you expect the DEA to accept, "Oh, it's really just a clerical error by some of my employees, or maybe some it was stolen? Who knows?"

What pharmacies stock cocaine?

Missing cocaine is not comparable to allowing a customer to abbreviate a state name instead instead of writing it out on the yellow forms. Or putting N and Y on the questions instead of yes and no. The ATF is nailing FFL dealers for nitpicky things like that.

ConfuseUs
August 8, 2007, 05:16 AM
Cocaine may not be readily found in your local pharmacy but it is used for some surgical procedures to stop bleeding since it causes blood vessels to constrict. Pretty much any hospital will have a small amount of cocaine solution for these procedures on hand at any given time unless some new drug can do the same thing.

However, considering that all pharmacies stock opiate painkillers and muscle relaxants by the pound then it makes sense that DEA would get a little torqued if a pharmacy happened to come up short a couple of pounds of say, pure hydrocodone. That would be worth a fortune on the street.

The question is, does the DEA lay the smack down on pharmacists who make minor paperwork errors? I've never heard of it but that doesn't mean it hasn't happened.

jeepmor
August 8, 2007, 07:02 AM
Bureaucrats doing what bureaucrats do, being a pain and not really contributing anything notably useful or productive.

pacodelahoya
August 8, 2007, 08:18 AM
All wonderful arguments for the Batfe......except for that pesky shall not be infringed part.

All of you so called progun people really need to take a close look at your values.

Owens
August 8, 2007, 09:13 AM
BATFE bad guys? As a whole, I don't think so. Just as with ANY LE group, unfortunately there will be bad apples that show up from time to time.
Having dealt with this agency, I can't say anything bad about them.
As to the dealers that were "shut down", I somehow feel that it was more likely due to something more serious than minor paperwork errors.

Deanimator
August 8, 2007, 09:33 AM
BATFE bad guys? As a whole, I don't think so.
I sure think so.

It wasn't individual BATF agents who adopted an AGENCY WIDE POLICY of committing PERJURY regarding the NFA record keeping system. That was an ORGANIZATIONAL decision, backed up by an AGENCY PRODUCED video on how to lie under oath.

The BATF(E) has a record of brutality, corruption, racism, and dishonesty which goes back to the Nixon Administration. They've organized racist parties out of BATF offices, on government time, using government resources, with invitations printed on agency letterhead. BATF agents were taken off of the '90s church burning investigation for a reason. It's called "an appearance of impropriety".

And they're the BATFE. There's no such thing as the "ATF".

Owens
August 8, 2007, 09:47 AM
It wasn't individual BATF agents who adopted an AGENCY WIDE POLICY of committing PERJURY regarding the NFA record keeping system. That was an ORGANIZATIONAL decision, backed up by an AGENCY PRODUCED video on how to lie under oath.

What proof or other documentation is there on this?

RPCVYemen
August 8, 2007, 09:51 AM
The question is, does the DEA lay the smack down on pharmacists who make minor paperwork errors?

Pharmacies get fined regularly. If a pharmacy does the equivalent of losing track of a bunch of guns - missing controlled drugs, the pharmacist is not only looking at a loss of license, they are very likely going to face federal charges.

I have been in a town where it happened - in Bloomington, IN in the early 80s. They did have cocaine in pharmacies in those days. And "Gosh, I don't know what happened. Maybe it got lost. Maybe one of my employees stole it. My wife was sick that day.", didn't cut much slack.

Mike

alex_trebek
August 8, 2007, 10:09 AM
I am not going to start ranting against the BATF, I dont think it is very High Road.

Do those that dont mind what the BATF is doing, like paying more for ammunition and guns? Ever wonder why Americans pay so much more for prescription drugs? I am not saying activities like these are the sole reason, however they only hurt the consumer. This is guaranteed, because I can assure you that no company is going to take a loss in profits.

I guess all I am saying is I dont understand why this cant be handled at a local level. If there is a dealer that is thought to be selling guns to criminals, fine let the local police do a sting operation or something.

woerm
August 8, 2007, 11:01 AM
from NFA owners assoc.

linky
http://www.nfaoa.org/resources.html
under
Legal problems and issues resulting from NFA Branch Chief Tom Busey's 1995 discussion of errors in the NFRTR
whole text :


ATF Inspector George Semonick testifies November 8, 2005, about condition of NFRTR
During ATF compliance inspections of licensed manufacturers of and dealers in NFA firearms and devices, it is often the case that the ATF's firearms records in the National Firearms Registration and Transfer Record (NFRTR) are inaccurate, while those of the manufacturer or dealer are accurate. In the case United States vs Wrenn (Cr. No. 1:04-045), District of South Carolina, Aiken Division, ATF Inspector George Semonick testified under oath that "there was a discrepancy" between firearms records maintained by defendant Wrenn and those maintained in the NFRTR by ATF. Inspector Semonick also confirmed "that the records, the records kept by ATF, were deficient." Defendant Wrenn was not charged with any record-keeping violations.

Transcript of remarks of NFA Branch Chief Thomas B. Busey, October 18, 1995, broadcast throughout ATF Headquarters
A transcription of the Busey videotape has been made under the title "ROLL CALL TRAINING, 10-95, TOM BUSEY," and is available from ATF under the Freedom of Information Act. Note that Mr. Busey is not, as ATF has stated in the past, speaking "off the cuff" or casually. In fact, Mr. Busey prepared his remarks in advance, can be seen reading from them in the videotape, using prepared charts, and intended to say everything he said. This transcript was published in TREASURY, POSTAL SERVICE, AND GENERAL GOVERNMENT APPROPRIATIONS FOR FISCAL YEAR 1999. 105th Congress, 2nd Session. PART 5: STATEMENTS OF MEMBERS OF CONGRESS AND OTHER INTERESTED INDIVIDUALS AND ORGANIZATIONS. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Government Printing Office, 1998, pages 173-194.

Roll Call Video (Highlights)
ATF/NFRTR Roll Call Training Video, October 1995, referenced in Firearms Law Deskbook excerpt, also on this site. ATF admits to perjury about the accuracy of the NFRTR database. High quality version available on request (218MB).


Roll Call Video (low res)
ATF/NFRTR Roll Call Training Video, October 1995, referenced in Firearms Law Deskbook excerpt, also on this site. ATF admits to perjury about the accuracy of the NFRTR database. High quality version full-length available on request (218MB).


In 1998 ATF denied a FOIA request for a copy of the video, because " . . . release of this video tape would constitute an invasion of Mr. Busey's privacy."
Enough said. This document may be cited as "Letter from Marilyn R. LaBrie, Disclosure Specialist, ATF, to Eric M. Larson dated March 18, 1998, bearing symbols L:D:MRL 98-514," and is published in TREASURY, POSTAL SERVICE, AND GENERAL GOVERNMENT APPROPRIATIONS FOR FISCAL YEAR 1999, 105th Congress, 2nd Session. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Government Printing Office, 1998, page 170.


Corrections by Gary N. Schaible of remarks by NFA Branch Chief Thomas Busey during "Roll Call Training"
In early 1996, ATF Specialist Gary N. Schaible attested, in a sworn affidavit, that NFA Branch Chief Thomas B. Busey made misstatements about the integrity of the National Firearms Registration and Transfer Record (NFRTR) during "Roll Call" training at ATF Headquarters in October 1995. This affidavit is entitled "Corrections by Gary N. Schaible Concerning Transcript of Roll Call Training by Tom Busey, Chief, National Firearms Act Branch, October 18, 1995, under Penalty of Perjury, Executed on February 13, 1995." This affidavit is published in TREASURY, POSTAL SERVICE, AND GENERAL GOVERNMENT APPROPRIATIONS FOR FISCAL YEAR 1997. 104th Congress, 2nd Session. PART 5: TESTIMONY OF MEMBERS OF CONGRESS AND OTHER INTERESTED INDIVIDUALS AND ORGANIZATIONS. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Government Printing Office, 1996, pages 182-183.

Legal analysis of the Busey presentation by James H. Jeffries III, Esq.
The first and best legal analysis of Thomas Busey's remarks about the NFRTR, is by an attorney who learned of the tape's existence and then quickly filed a Freedom of Information Act request to keep the tape from being destroyed. The article, "Institutional Perjury," by James H. Jeffries III, was published in Voice for the Defense, Vol. 25, No. 8, October 1996, pages 28-30, and later in TREASURY, POSTAL SERVICE, AND GENERAL GOVERNMENT APPROPRIATIONS FOR FISCAL YEAR 1999. 105th Congress, 2nd Session. PART 5: STATEMENTS OF MEMBERS OF CONGRESS AND OTHER INTERESTED INDIVIDUALS AND ORGANIZATIONS. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Government Printing Office, 1998, pages 40-42. His contact information is: James H. Jeffries III, Esq, 3019 Lake Forest Drive, Greensboro, North Carolina 27408; telephone (336) 282-6024; FAX (336) 288-0407; e-mail: slr1918a3@aol.com
To read a copy of "Institutional Perjury" published in the Congressional Record (Extensions of Remarks), Vol. 142, August 2, 1996, pages E1461-E1462, click here.


1998 Congressional statement regarding illegal felony convictions based on a coverup of ATF losing or destroying NFA paperwork
In the first legal case where the Busey tape was used to reverse felony convictions for nonregistration of firearms in the NFRTR, Federal District Judge John A. MacKenzie stated: " . . . the question of whether or not Mr. Busey's information was correct or not should have been furnished to the defendant's counsel, and its not being furnished seems to me to have violated a precept under which we proceed." In his "Statement on Efforts by the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms to Cover Up Errors in the National Firearms Registration and Transfer Record and to Illegally Withhold Exculpatory Evidence in Criminal Prosecutions," defendant John D. LeaSure and his attorney, David N. Montague, Esq., describe the process of the subsequent reversal of these illegal convictions. These materials are published in TREASURY, POSTAL SERVICE, AND GENERAL GOVERNMENT APPROPRIATIONS FOR FISCAL YEAR 1999. 105th Congress, 2nd Session. PART 5: STATEMENTS OF MEMBERS OF CONGRESS AND OTHER INTERESTED INDIVIDUALS AND ORGANIZATIONS. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Government Printing Office, 1998, pages 146-172.

ATF Specialist Gary N. Schaible gives contradictory sworn testimony, in Federal District Court in 1996 and to ATF Special Agent Jeff Groh in 1997 during an internal ATF investigation, about the destruction of NFA documents by persons working at or for ATF
In a 1996 federal court case, United States vs. John Daniel LeaSure (click here) ATF Specialist Gary N. Schaible testified under oath that NFA branch clerks could have destroyed documents that Mr. LeaSure FAXed to the NFA Branch in February 1994. But Mr. Shaible told a completely different story during a 1997 investigation by ATF's office of internal investigations. Specifically, Mr. Schaible testified (also under oath) that the event he was thinking about when he testified in 1996 really happened in 1988, when contract employees working at ATF were suspected of destroying NFA documents because they didn't feel like working on them. At minimum, Mr. Schaible's sworn 1996 testimony appears to be mistaken. But what really happened? In this excerpt from "Work Papers on Errors in the National Firearms Registration and Transfer Record, and Other Issues Regarding the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms" (the full document is posted on "Resources" as "1998 Treasury OIG critique"), author Eric M. Larson compares and analyzes Mr. Schaible's contradictory sworn testimonies.

In a 1996 Bench Trial, a Federal District Judge dismissed 5 convictions for nonregistration of firearms in the NFRTR, based on ATF withholding evidence that NFA Branch Clerks could have thrown the defendant's documents away
This transcript of the first case in which convictions for nonregistration of firearms in the NFRTR were dismissed by a Federal District Judge based on the Busey Videotape includes testimony by ATF Specialist Gary N. Schaible, who answered "Yes" to defense attorney David N. Montague's question "Do you have -- have you had occasions that you're aware of in the NFA branch of clerks throwing away transmissions because they don't want to fool with them?" The legal citation for this case is United States vs. John Daniel LeaSure (click here) , Crim. No. 4:95cr54, E.D. Va.--Newport News Div., Transcript of Proceeding before the Honorable John A. MacKenzie (May 21, 1996). This case is not listed in the West system because it is a Bench Trial; had ATF appealed this case and lost, it would have become case law (ATF declined to appeal). This transcript was published in TREASURY, POSTAL SERVICE, AND GENERAL GOVERNMENT APPROPRIATIONS FOR FISCAL YEAR 1999. 105th Congress, 2nd Session. PART 5: STATEMENTS OF MEMBERS OF CONGRESS AND OTHER INTERESTED INDIVIDUALS AND ORGANIZATIONS. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Government Printing Office, 1998, pages 195-276.

In a sworn 1998 affidavit, attorney James Jeffries III provides additional legal analysis of United States vs. John Daniel LeaSure (1996)
BATF negligence in losing or destroying John D. LeaSure's NFA paperwork resulted in a fraudulently procured search warrant, which "resulted in the warrantless plain view seizure of the only evidence supporting the surviving count" against Mr. LeaSure after Federal District Judge John A. MacKenzie dismissed the convictions for possession of unregistered NFA firearms. "The fundamental flaw in the [ATF Specialist Gary N.] Shaible 'correction' to the Busey statement is the silent deception inherent in BATF's consistent approach to the NFR&TR error problem," Mr. Jeffries states. "No doubt it is true that alternative search techniques will disclose registered firearms in the registry somewhere, even if a name is misspelled or a serial number is transposed. That is not the issue, and never has been. Where the evil occurs, as it did in this case, is that no search technique will locate a registration which has been removed, destroyed, or through BATF negligence or misconduct never found its way into the registry. No one can hear the dog which does not bark." This document may be cited as "Declaration of James H. Jeffries III, dated September 11, 1998.

In 2001, attorneys James O. Bardwell and David T. Hardy, and Members of the New Hampshire House of Representatives, expressed concerns to the Congress about the NFRTR situation
Selected letters from an unpublished "Testimonial Letter Appendix" to accompanying Eric M. Larson's 2001 statement to the Congress further articulate specific concerns about the accuracy and completeness of the NFRTR, and related issues. James O. Bardwell, Esq. needs no introduction to the Class III community; his long-standing NFA Web Site, an obvious labor of love for the hobby, is still used extensively by citizens and the government alike, always without any fee. Attorney Bardwell states: "I do not understand how ATF employees can regularly offer sworn statements in court that a given person does not have a firearm registered to him when their records are so poorly kept, and so poorly indexed." David T. Hardy, Esq., is a long-time NFA attorney, and worked "in law enforcement matters as a government employee for the U.S. Bureau of the Interior." Attorney Hardy, citing various unpublished Treasury Department Inspector General audit Work Papers, points out an ATF Special Agent's statement that " . . . much of the [Form 4467] documentation prior to 1972 may have been destroyed . . . " (emphasis in original), and recommended "that criminal investigative procedures be used to determine the accuracy and completeness of the data base, as well as to determine whether any effort has been successfully made to add records of Form 4467 registrations back into the NFRTR, as the result of ATF being confronted with those forms by lawful owners of NFA firearms." Similar concerns motivated 22 Members of the New Hampshire House of Representatives to ask the Subcommittee to encourage ATF to "provide a written plan, with priorities and timetables, stating exactly how [various NFRTR errors] will be corrected," and "to allow law-abiding owners of NFA firearms the opportunity to re-register them so as to remove any 'contraband' status that has resulted from ATF employees not following the law or procedures in the conduct of their official duties." A complete copy of this Testimonial Letter Appendix is on record in the permanent files of the Subcommittee on Treasury, Postal Service and General Government and its successors.

In 1992, ATF seized and ultimately destroyed an MP-40 for which no record could be found in the NFRTR, although the owner, Noel Napolilli, had a valid Form 3 approved by ATF.
This unusual case arises from two issues---ATF's loss of all its NFRTR records of a registered NFA firearm, and ATF's later interpretation that the firearm was contraband. Both issues were beyond control of the owner, to whom ATF had approved a valid Form 3 transfer. The NFRTR issue is straightforward, as ATF states: " . . . ATF had no record of registration of the MP40 machinegun to Mr. Napolilli or any other person." The larger issue arises from an apparently informal practice, during the early 1980s, of getting unregistered machineguns off the street by some ATF Special Agents instructing Class II manufacturers to "manufacture" them and file Forms 2 to register them. This little-discussed but widely known practice within the Class III industry may involve as many as 20,000 machine guns currently owned by people who have no way of knowing that these firearms are contraband, or any means of rendering them legal to possess. Mr. Napolilli's letter to the Congress and copy of Noel E. Napolilli vs. United States of America (U.S.D.C., D. Alaska, Case No. Civ. F93-37), are published in TREASURY, POSTAL SERVICE, AND GENERAL GOVERNMENT APPROPRIATIONS FOR FISCAL YEAR 1999. 105th Congress, 2nd Session. PART 5: STATEMENTS OF MEMBERS OF CONGRESS AND OTHER INDIVIDUALS AND ORGANIZATIONS. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Government Printing Office, 1998, pages 33-39; the "Declaration of Noel E. Napolilli" and ATF's "Laboratory Report" dated March 2, 1993, is published in TREASURY, POSTAL SERVICE, AND GENERAL GOVERNMENT APPROPRIATIONS FOR FISCAL YEAR 2000. 106th Congress, 1st Session. PART 5: MEMBERS OF CONGRESS AND OTHER INTERESTED INDIVIDUALS AND ORGANIZATIONS. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Government Printing Office, 1999, pages 82-87. ATF's April 11, 2005, letter to Mr. Napolilli, and its letter dated September 18, 1992, to attorney James H. Jeffries III, are unpublished. To read James H. Jeffries' article, "Owners of 'Remanufactured' Guns Beware," click here.

United States vs. Wilson (Ancillary Civil Action H-97-83), Criminal Case H-82-139, October 27, 2003
Edwin Paul Wilson carried out covert actions on behalf of the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) for many years, which the CIA and the Government repeatedly denied, and Mr. Wilson was consequently convicted of serious felonies arising from these activities and sentenced to lengthy federal imprisonment. In this unusual case, whose appeals played out during some 20 years, United States District Lynn N. Hughes vacated all of Mr. Wilson's convictions "Because the Government knowingly used false evidence against him and suppressed favorable evidence." Judge Hughes notes at the outset that "This opinion refers only to the part of the record that the government has reluctantly agreed be made public. It does not attempt to recount even that limited range of data in its entirety; the government deceit mentioned here is illustrative--not exhaustive."

United States vs. John Daniel LeaSure, transcript of sentencing hearing, April 14, 1998
The LeaSure case ended with ATF insisting that Mr. LeaSure be sentenced to 48 months in federal prison rather than the 1 year sentence imposed by Federal District Judge John A. MacKenzie. The reason, ATF contended, is that Judge MacKenzie (by this time retired) had not fully explained the reason for departing downward in his sentence of Mr. LeaSure. A new Judge, Raymond A. Jackson, determined that Judge MacKenzie had not fully explained the reason for a reduced sentence, and so re-sentenced Mr. LeaSure to 45 months in prison, a $3,400 fine, and 3 years of supervised probation. What’s interesting in this case beyond the fact that apparently neither the defense nor the prosecution sought to obtain an affidavit from Judge MacKenzie (which seems like a logical thing to do), is the continued interplay between Mr. LeaSure’s attorney and the Assistant United States Attorney regarding the withholding of exculpatory evidence in this case by the Government. A careful reading of the entire LeaSure case suggests that Mr. LeaSure got an unusually raw deal from ATF and from the Government, for reasons that may never be satisfactorily explained in public. This case may be cited as United States vs. John Daniel LeaSure, Crim. No. 4:95cr54, E.D. Va.--Newport News Div., Transcript of Proceeding before the Honorable Raymond A. Jackson (April 14, 1998). For those who may think the Government (in particular, the Central Intelligence Agency) necessarily takes care of its own, see United States vs. Wilson, also posted in this section.

1998 Treasury OIG critique
In this unpublished document prepared for Rep. Pete Sessions, author Eric M. Larson uses Tom Busey's remarks about the NFRTR as the starting point for what became the basis for his Congressional testimonies and statements about the NFRTR being inaccurate and incomplete. The evidence Mr. Larson uses includes NFRTR transaction data, statements by other ATF personnel about the kinds of errors in the NFRTR, and the empirical basis, methods, and theoretical assumptions used in his evaluation and analysis. Therefore, anyone is free to replicate his findings, as well as to perform different analyses involving other data and assumptions. In 1997, ATF stopped providing the types of NFRTR transaction statistics that Mr. Larson used as an evidentiary basis for criticizing ATF's administration of the NFA and management of the NFRTR. Note that this 1999 analysis was completed before the Treasury OIG audit work papers were available. This critique should be referenced as "Work Papers on Errors in the National Firearms Registration and Transfer Record, and Other Issues Regarding the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms," by Eric M. Larson. Prepared for The Honorable Pete Sessions, House of Representatives, Washington, D.C., April 2, 1999 (unpublished). Also note that virtually all of the evidence Mr. Larson uses came from ATF itself; that is, the data and/or documents he cites were created by ATF. These include documents published by the Government, as well as obtained by the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) process. NOTE: This document is also included in the section containing Mr. Larson's published Congressional testimonies and statements.

woerm
August 8, 2007, 11:08 AM
from the above,

batfe knew in the early 70's that the registry was 'flawed'

made 'adjustments'

still had a error rate (found that GIGO really sucks when you computerize records and destroy origionals before you have verified the records as accurate).

still testifed in courts (still tries, to this day see wrenn) that the nfa registry and transfer records are '100% accurate.

which is 100% bs.

r

in wrenn the agent(under cross exam) said there were over 100 errors in the registry on the last inspection of wrenn's records *all* were batfe errors wrenn's records were accurate batfe's were not.


r

Prince Yamato
August 8, 2007, 11:13 AM
1) the BATF exists

2) Their firearms division checks FFL paperwork

3) If you're an FFL, they'll probably check your paperwork

What's the issue? As far as trying to "Drive people down", give me a break. If they put all FFLs out of business, the BATF agents would be out of work. I'm not a fan of the agency, but they exist. As long as they exist, I'll be cordial. So just have your paperwork in order and have your organization as a source of pride when they come and check it.

Blackbeard
August 8, 2007, 12:22 PM
Just curious - what are the recordkeeping requirements for a FFL? What happens if records are destroyed by fire, for example?

Deanimator
August 8, 2007, 12:26 PM
What's the issue? As far as trying to "Drive people down", give me a break. If they put all FFLs out of business, the BATF agents would be out of work. I'm not a fan of the agency, but they exist. As long as they exist, I'll be cordial. So just have your paperwork in order and have your organization as a source of pride when they come and check it.
Their own paperwork is apparently in a shambles and they're willing to LIE UNDER OATH about it.

Under THOSE circumstances, there's NOTHING you can do.

RPCVYemen
August 8, 2007, 12:33 PM
Do those that dont mind what the BATF is doing, like paying more for ammunition and guns? Ever wonder why Americans pay so much more for prescription drugs?

WRT to prescription drugs, I suspect the prices have a lot more to do with the pharmaceutical companies buying themselves a Congress and a President than anything else. Actually, they just had to buy themselves a Vice President, and he pulled the strings.:) And then invoked executive privilege to cover it all up - well, executive privilege and Jesus ...

I personally don't object a bit to the BATFE monitoring the sale of firearms or explosives. It seems to me that explosives, controlled drugs are all very powerful tools in the right hands. Unfortunately, they are also all prone to abuse in the wrong hands. That is why they are monitored.

For most of those kinds of things repeatedly screwing up paperwork will cost you your license. My wife is a nurse at a hospital - if she screws up paperwork for the drugs that are locked up, she gets hauled before the Nursing Board.

You are correct in that paperwork raises costs - and doing it correctly costs more money than doing it incorrectly. Some dealers decide to cheat to cut down on the cost of doing it correctly. They should be spanked.

If you are incompetent, sell Beanie Babies.

Mike

Deanimator
August 8, 2007, 12:39 PM
If you are incompetent, sell Beanie Babies.

Excellent advice for the BATFE, but I doubt they'll take it...

Redneck with a 40
August 8, 2007, 01:49 PM
Alcahol, Tobacco, and Firearms.......should be a convienience store, not a govt agency.:D:evil: lol!:D

tulsamal
August 8, 2007, 02:00 PM
I know that my transfer dealer is totally paranoid about how the 4473's get filled out. He looks at every little point. As somebody said, don't even bother handing it to him if you put "Oklahoma City, OK" for your birth place. No abbreviations at all. And question 12 has been "N/A" before. Now it is important to leave it blank.

That's the sort of thing people are complaining about. If ATF inspects your paperwork and says it is "incorrect" because you were having people put "N/A" in question 12 rather than leaving it blank, that's just bureaucracy B.S.

If a gunshop really can't account for every gun, sure, go after them. No one has a problem with ATF going after the bad guys. It's when they go after the good guys over stupid little things that shouldn't matter in the first place. And they change the rules themselves on a regular basis just to catch people who aren't hanging on every word in their newsletters!

Gregg

rhubarb
August 8, 2007, 02:09 PM
If they put all FFLs out of business, the BATF agents would be out of work.

If all FFLs go out of business, there are still millions of us with guns who need to be watched.

RNB65
August 8, 2007, 02:16 PM
No abbreviations at all.

That's just paranoia run amok. I've purchased at least 10 guns in the last year from 3 different dealers and I've used "VA" on all of the 4473's with no complaints.

deadin
August 8, 2007, 02:20 PM
Would someone please document an instance where a dealer was shut down strictly because of not dotting an 'i' or crossing a 't' on the paperwork? In everything I have seen this 'charge' has been in addition to any number of other charges, like not being able to account for inventory and/or other more dubious practices or continuing to keep sloppy books after being warned that he was not in compliance.

Gator
August 8, 2007, 03:03 PM
The BATF(E) has a record of brutality, corruption, racism, and dishonesty which goes back to the Nixon Administration. They've organized racist parties out of BATF offices, on government time, using government resources, with invitations printed on agency letterhead. BATF agents were taken off of the '90s church burning investigation for a reason. It's called "an appearance of impropriety".


And don't forget the numerous cases of "fixing" semi-autos so that they fire full auto....and....oh yeah killing innocent people!

MechAg94
August 8, 2007, 03:08 PM
I used to work in a facility that sold products regulated by the FDA. Same deal with paperwork out the wazoo. We did regular audits of the paperwork for shipments leaving the site to find and correct errors. No way around it.

Prince Yamato
August 8, 2007, 03:36 PM
Would someone please document an instance where a dealer was shut down strictly because of not dotting an 'i' or crossing a 't' on the paperwork? In everything I have seen this 'charge' has been in addition to any number of other charges, like not being able to account for inventory and/or other more dubious practices or continuing to keep sloppy books after being warned that he was not in compliance.

Didn't you hear [insert conspiracy theory here] ?

You'd better be careful. Wait 'til the ATF does to you like they did to [insert quasi-fabricated story here].

glummer
August 8, 2007, 03:51 PM
Prince
The ATF has deleted the important parts of your message!! :what::what:

Carl N. Brown
August 8, 2007, 04:05 PM
If they put all FFLs out of business, the BATF agents would be out of work.

And if they don't shut a few down over accepting "VA" or "TN" rather than
spelling out "Virginia" or "Tennessee" it will look like they are not working.
ATF has a long history of abuses documented in congressional hearings.
News of ATF looking for excuses to shut down FFLs without a storefront
is not new. I have been told by my local dealer if you do not have a
business license, store front, business insurance, etc. you can forget
about ATF approving a FFL. It used to be you could get an FFL, and
as long as you followed the rules, you could work out of your kitchen.
A few people still operate as "kitchen table" gun dealers, having got
their FFL in the old days and ATF wants to shut them all down to make
work easier for ATF. To do that, they have to make the "kitchen table"
FFLs look like criminals whether they have don anything wrong or not.

And if conspiracy theory is what you want: one of the items listed in
the application for search warrant at Waco was a videotape "Breaking
the Law in the Name of the Law: The BATF Story" produced by
Gun Owners of America. According to the ATF investigator,
David Aguilera, the fact that Vernon Howell aka David Koresh
showed to ATF undercover agent Robert Rodriguez (not the Robert
Rodriguez who directed "Mariachi", the other Robert Rodriguez)
a videotape that depicted the ATF as rogue agency that routinely
violated citizens' rights was one of the justifications for the raid on
Koresh's church.

RPCVYemen
August 8, 2007, 05:19 PM
And if they don't shut a few down over accepting "VA" or "TN" rather than spelling out "Virginia" or "Tennessee" it will look like they are not working.

Carl, can you specify an FFL was shut down do solely to accepting "VA" instead of "Virginia" on a form? Or "TN" instead of "Tennessee"?

Mike

Kilgor
August 8, 2007, 05:38 PM
Red's Trading Post

Google it.

Carl N. Brown
August 8, 2007, 05:43 PM
They have the dealers believing that. Ask a few FFL
dealers.

When I moved and tried to buy a gun before
I had my drivers license changed, the dealer stopped the
4473 and told me to get a new drivers license with my
current address and come back: if we had completed
the form with my TDL showing a different address than
my then current address--and this was less than two
weeks after I had moved--it would have been serious
to the ATF. And this was like moving two miles within the
same city, same state. The TDOS allowed me 30 days to
change my TDL. I wrote my new street address on the
4473, but when the dealer saw my old address on my TDL
he told me the ATF would treat it as falsifying a federal
form--felony violation. And this is a dealer who knew me
for over twenty years.

Kilgor
August 8, 2007, 05:46 PM
Here's a start.

http://www.redstradingpost.com/atf.php

http://redstradingpost.blogspot.com/

http://instapundit.com/archives2/007549.php

http://www.jpfo.org/redstradingpost.htm

Owens
August 8, 2007, 05:51 PM
Maybe my experiences with the BATFE are an exception to the rule, but I suspect that there are other instances of like encounters.
I am one of those "kitchen table" types. When I put in to get my 01, I made a few phone calls to the agent in my area. I asked a few questions about things I had heard were a stumbling block, such as store front, etc. and got straight answers.
Application went through without a hitch, interview was pleasant, and informative. The agent answered any other questions I had about records and such. I have had the license now going on 4 years. Any time I have had a question about something, a phone call to the same agent has always provided a straight forward, friendly answer. When it came time for renewal and my application was hung up on someones desk, I was provided with a direct phone line and 1 call got it handled.

HonorsDaddy
August 8, 2007, 05:55 PM
You seem to be about the first person I've seen on this board - or any other gun-oriented forum - who holds the BATFE in something other than utter contempt. Would you be so kind as to explain to me why you dont believe they are the {accurate description of the typical BATFE agent censored due to inability to articulate without violating the forum rules} I believe them to be?

Im serious. If you're able to shed any light upon the agency which may allow me to see them a little less negatively, I'm all ears, er, eyes.

Carl N. Brown
August 8, 2007, 05:57 PM
I think ATF enforcement is like the old real estate slogan:
location, location, location. And staying in touch with the
local branch ATF office seems to make a difference too.
And sometimes the difference is the local ATF agent's
attitude toward gun dealers and gun owners in general.

deadin
August 8, 2007, 06:06 PM
If I remember correctly Red's Trading Post was investigated beause of a large number of apparent violations, the least of which was "State abbreviations, etc.. Something to do with missing inventory, guns not in the book, using someon else's ID to get discounts and so on. I also noticed that your "references" are from Red's own blog. I wonder why he appears to be as pure as the driven snow????

I also seem to remember seeing where he is still open, so the undotted "i"'s and uncrossed "t"'s didn't do him in.

Owens
August 8, 2007, 06:12 PM
Honors Daddy,

I wish I could put into words what ye seeketh. All I can say is what I have experienced. Maybe Carl N. Brown summed it up well. It may indeed have to do with the person and their geographical/social location on the map.

Again, all I stated before was my actual experience.

HimNAz
August 8, 2007, 06:27 PM
"And they're the BATFE. There's no such thing as the "ATF".

Believe you are wrong. Google ATF and you get http://www.atf.treas.gov/ They have joined the "three initial crowd" (FBI, CIA, NSA, DEA etc.). They now call themselves ATF. True, their full name includes explosives.

RPCVYemen
August 8, 2007, 06:28 PM
Red's Trading Post

Google it.

Red's manager, Ryan Horsley, admits when the business sold guns it sometimes left blank required parts of a gun purchase form, omitted a background check on a special order, failed to log multiple handgun sales to the same customer in five working days, did not keep track of guns returned to manufacturers, threw away denied applications dealers are required to keep for 20 years and failed to post a gun safety sign and pamphlets.

If that is an answer to my question, Red's was not an issue of someone abbreviating a state's name. Missing guns, background checks skipped, etc. Horsely (or his defense attorney) said the guns weren't really missing after all. Horsely previously said that the guns were maybe stolen by his employees! All of the sudden they are not stolen. Odd how guns do that. Whatever happened at Reds, I think there was more than an abbreviation problem.

If you have a link to documents than more official than JFPO rantings (as much as I enjoy JFPO) or Horsley's blog, I would actually interested in reading it.

When I moved and tried to buy a gun before
I had my drivers license changed, the dealer stopped the
4473 and told me to get a new drivers license with my
current address and come back... I wrote my new street address on the
4473, but when the dealer saw my old address on my TDL
he told me the ATF would treat it as falsifying a federal
form--felony violation.

It does not seem unreasonable the ATF wants the address on a purchase form to match an address on a Driver's License. Lots of folks have Driver's License addresses that are years out of date.

I'd be surprised if it was a felony violation to have the addresses mis-match, as long as you are not lying about either address.

Mike

Prince Yamato
August 8, 2007, 06:51 PM
The ATF has deleted the important parts of your message!!

Uh-oh... crap, they're onto me, I better hide the machineguns and absinthe! :D

RPCVYemen
August 8, 2007, 06:55 PM
Here's a start.

http://www.redstradingpost.com/atf.php

http://redstradingpost.blogspot.com/

http://instapundit.com/archives2/007549.php

http://www.jpfo.org/redstradingpost.htm

And you think of all of these are reliable and trustworthy sources of information? That's pretty sad.

Mike

Deanimator
August 8, 2007, 07:22 PM
And you think of all of these are reliable and trustworthy sources of information? That's pretty sad.

And you think that the BATFE is a reliable and trustworthy source of information?

How many instructional videos on how to commit perjury has Red's Trading Post produced?

Deanimator
August 8, 2007, 07:26 PM
"And they're the BATFE. There's no such thing as the "ATF".

Believe you are wrong. Google ATF and you get http://www.atf.treas.gov/ They have joined the "three initial crowd" (FBI, CIA, NSA, DEA etc.). They now call themselves ATF. True, their full name includes explosives.
There is NO ATF. There used to be a BATF. The current name is the BATFE (Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives). It's NEVER been called the "ATF". That's merely an affectation on the part of the BATFE.

I can call myself the King of Siam. It doesn't make it so.

Owens
August 9, 2007, 01:01 AM
HonorsDaddy,

At first I was going to send this as a PM, so as to not clutter up a thread with more *stuff*. But then I thought what the heck. Put it out as a comment.Mods, please do with this as you deem fit, thanks

I got to thinking about your request and sorta figured out in my mind what to say in response to your request.
To whit:

What I have seen and come to believe in regards to the BATFE or any other LE agency whether federal, state or local is basically along these lines:

Have you ever noticed how we hear about this (fill in the blank) agency/department that has been doing (X)? And when you look at it in the big picture, it is usually an incident there and an incident here? But as a whole it is obviously not everywhere nor is everyone being abused/threatened/whatever. Just individual cases. We get bombarded with all kinds of (pardon for a moment) TIN FOIL HAT ON - conspiracy and other wild conjectures that lead people to think that there is a uni-lateral attempt at this or that they are attempting to obliterate this or that. - TIN FOIL HAT OFF. Politicians may not fit in all that though. :D

As a profession, I teach at a 2 year college in a technical trade. In doing so, I deal with young adults who sometimes are a little childish in their behavior. I have had related to me numerous accounts of the police did this or that to me, etc. when I got stopped for speeding at 80 in a 70. All I hear is how bad the police are from them. Crimminy...they're just doing their job, for cryin out loud! Thank God they do!

I have also come to the conclusion that how your attitude is displayed can go a long way one direction or the other. After all, an attitude is merely an outward expression of an inward feeling. They can read your attitude (I think) and it sets the tone of the encounter.

You and others may find this hard to swallow too, but I have been stopped by the police for stop signs, speed and such. However, I have never had a horror story incident. Granted they were direct and to the point, but again, they were doing their job. They were also courteous about the incident. I can even relate on a couple of occasions that after our "business" was transacted, that we got into some pleasant conversations, even had a few chuckles about it. Imagine that. They must be human!

My experiences have painted a picture of them (BATFE, LE, _____) that is not of a jack-booted thug.

Let me temper all this a bit:
As I said they are human too. This means that agency (X) has as many opportunities for an individual or two to be abnormal as there are agents/officers in said group. Hanging on a badge does not instantly translate someone into SUPER DUPER WONDER HUMAN. If thats all it took, we could issue badges to every person in the country and we would have no need for any LE agencies.

Is it possible for conspiracies to exist? Absoultely! Do I believe there have been a few? Absolutely! For the sake of topic, I won't mention which ones of course.

I might as well get this out in the open too: Yes, I do have some friends in LE at various levels and agencies. However, in conversation, it has been said that they will do their job if I deserve it. I expect no less. And no, the technical trade I do IS NOT law enforcement.

I just cant (at this point in time anyway) believe that all of group (X) is bad.

Danus ex
August 9, 2007, 01:25 AM
Owens, how dare you be levelheaded? How dare you have basic social skills? Act cordial and establish an effective professional relationship with a government licensing agent? You make a mockery of this thread, sir! For shame!

gezzer
August 9, 2007, 01:36 AM
Owens, I agree with you. Our inspector on our 07 FFL was very professional, knowledgeable etc. I have been in contact with him since for questions and he again was professional and helpful. We were not only given his office contacts but also his cell phone and was told call my cell it is my job to help you.

Wild Deuce
August 9, 2007, 01:48 AM
Maybe you guys are right. It's all about "location, location, location" and how you interact with others. After all, the ones in the middle of the herd think everything's ok. It's the crazy ones at the edge making all the noise ... as they get picked off one by one.

Just be nice to the lions ... maybe they'll eat you last.

Carl N. Brown
August 9, 2007, 11:33 AM
The Clinton Administration had an admitted policy of reducing
the number of gun dealers, especially the kitchen table dealers,
by an arbitrary number.

You cannot implement a policy to reduce FFLs by a fixed number
and pull licenses with any sort of due process. Law exercised at
the discretion or whim of the enforcement agency, or at the
mere appearance of arbritrary enforcement, is detrimental to
the concept of rule of law.

waterhouse
August 9, 2007, 11:37 AM
I have been told by my local dealer if you do not have a
business license, store front, business insurance, etc. you can forget
about ATF approving a FFL. It used to be you could get an FFL, and
as long as you followed the rules, you could work out of your kitchen.

Your local gun dealer probably believed the stuff he read on the internet. I read that stuff a couple of years ago too. I doubted I would be able to get a license and work out of the house. Then I called the local ATF office and asked them some questions. They said if it was allowed in my locality and I did everything correctly I would probably be approved, and I was. When the agent came to inspect the house he asked to see the safe. I showed him a small one and told him that I was waiting to get a larger one until I saw if I got approved. He sort of laughed and said "Why wouldn't you be approved?"

When I moved and tried to buy a gun before
I had my drivers license changed, the dealer stopped the
4473 and told me to get a new drivers license with my
current address and come back:

The back of the 4473 specifically states, in writing, that the buyer

must provide a valid government-issued photo identification to the seller that contains the buyer's name, residence address, and date of birth


I didn't add the bold face. It is bold face on the 4473. Not selling a gun until you have a valid, current ID is not the same as the abbreviation thing. I have spoken to several ATF agents about the abbreviation thing, both at a local dealers meeting and at SHOT, and none of them seem to care one way or the other.

I think ATF enforcement is like the old real estate slogan:
location, location, location. And staying in touch with the
local branch ATF office seems to make a difference too.
And sometimes the difference is the local ATF agent's
attitude toward gun dealers and gun owners in general.

It is quite possible you nailed it. All of the ones I have dealt with have been friendly and professional.

stevelyn
August 9, 2007, 12:13 PM
The sturmtruppen of the waffen BATFEces are like wolves. They go after non-threatening targets.

Calling them LE dishonors those of us who are.:fire:

SSN Vet
August 9, 2007, 12:49 PM
My FFL guy runs a very small time business out of his house doing FFL transactions for $10/ea. and small gunsmith projects.

On my last purchase he asked me to make a correction on a transfer form from a previous transaction, as apparently he caught an error on the form while doing his own audit. It's been several months now and I honestly can't remember what it was...something very minor and nit-picky...

So we get into a conversation about paperwork and the ATF and he tells me that he gets an onsite ATF audit every year. He says it's usually the same agent, a woman, who is always very polite and professional and that she frequently gives him tips on how to stay out of trouble.

He's never been fined or threatened with having his liscense yanked.

Hmmm! Maybe she plants a bug and the black helicopter that comes by at night records his political rants on THR.

Maybe they're keeping track of all his customers and are going to raid my house and confiscate my beloved Winchester 1300, or my Marlin 336.

Obviously it's an evil conspiracy. It couldn't possibly be a normal person with a job in law enforcement who's trying to do their level best and who sincerely wants to contributie to society and support their family.

Couldn't be, could it?

Naw!

Carl N. Brown
August 9, 2007, 01:57 PM
It would be nice if all ATF agents were "a normal person with a job in law enforcement who's trying to do their level best and who sincerely wants to contributie to society and support their family."

Thankfully, most of them are. I honest believe most are.

But Robert Sanders, former enforcement chief of the ATF, left the
agency for a reason to be come a lawyer specialising in cases of
folks charged by the ATF.

When Alan Bock of Reason magazine went to the Ruby Creek vigil
and protest suring the federal siege at Ruby Ridge, Bock
encountered a former ATF agent who gave him an earful about
why he left the agency and some of the things he had seen.

Jesse Walter of the Spokane Spokesman-Review wrote the best
account of Ruby Ridge. ATF Herb Byerly approached Randy Weaver
to be a snitch in part because a background check came up nada,
not even a traffic ticket; after Weaver refused to become a snitch,
Byerly told the next agencies in line that Weaver was a bank
robber and had criminal convictions. He later tried to explain those
claims away as typographical errors or some such.

And the conduct of Ted Royster in the raid on John Lawmasters
home in Oklahoma is another cause celebre.

And I will not go into how ATF was depicted in the sci fi series Lexx.

Notice most of these cases are late 1980s, early 1990s. I suspect
the image of the agency today is suffering over past abuses and
failure to come clean in the past, leaving a cloud of suspicion over
the agency today.

Still, most of us see ATF as executing the will of Chuck Schumer,
Sara Brady and Dianne Feinstein.

zeroskillz
August 9, 2007, 02:42 PM
Our inspector on our 07 FFL was very professional, knowledgeable etc. I have been in contact with him since for questions and he again was professional and helpful. We were not only given his office contacts but also his cell phone and was told call my cell it is my job to help you.

That was my experience when getting my FFL. I'd go so far as to say the bent over a bit to help me get everything in order. I had a few mistakes on my application and the agent who came out to do the site visit before I got my FFL sat down with me and helped me correct everything that needed it. Anytime I've called the ATF with a question, they have been more than helpful and completely professional.


I have been told by my local dealer if you do not have a business license, store front, business insurance, etc. you can forget about ATF approving a FFL.

Maybe he doesn't want to lose your business :D
You do need all licenses required by local/state law for conducting business in your locale.
You do not need a storefront.

It used to be you could get an FFL, and as long as you followed the rules, you could work out of your kitchen.

That is still the case my friend. I prefer my study as opposed to my kitchen.
:)

zeroskillz
August 9, 2007, 02:43 PM
triple post, weird.

zeroskillz
August 9, 2007, 02:45 PM
triple post, weird.

Deanimator
August 9, 2007, 03:33 PM
And I will not go into how ATF was depicted in the sci fi series Lexx.

Oh man, I laughed until I was sick!!!

Carl N. Brown
August 9, 2007, 04:02 PM
Lexx was a German-Canadian production, to boot.
Foreigners have a bad impression of ATF, for whatever that is worth.

RPCVYemen
August 9, 2007, 04:26 PM
account of Ruby Ridge. ATF Herb Byerly approached Randy Weaver

Oh no! Somehow we stumbled into Rudy Ridge again! All topics lead to Ruby Riadge...

Is it possible for conspiracies to exist?

One might exist. But it does tickle me when people attribute super-human conspiracy to our federal government - the same people who deliver our mail? Yeah, the federal government a finely tuned machine, humming along hatching complex detailed conspiracies that are successfully kept quiet for decades at a time.

Still, most of us see ATF as executing the will of Chuck Schumer, Sara Brady and Dianne Feinstein.

If you find solace in herd thinking, it's hard to argue. Lots of people are happier in the middle of a herd than they are thinking for themselves.

There are also some of us who think that the Constitution clearly separates Executive and Legislative powers - and the law enforcement is an Executive Power. For those of us that think that way, law enforcers have a limited ability to legislate - to alter laws. Basically, that means that if the Legislative branch passes a law, whether the enforcement agencies like it or not, they are required to enforce it. Whether the laws, in your opinion or my opinion, reflect the will of Sarah Brady, Genghis Khan, or Bozo the clown, it doesn't make any difference - as far as enforcement.

And some of us also think that ATF in general is asked to do a hard and occasionally dangerous job that is nonetheless critical for public safety. As with any government policy, no one thinks it's perfect. However many of us like the idea that a federal agency monitors the sale in firearms and explosives - to help restrict the availability of firearms and explosives to criminals and terrorists.

That is still the case my friend. I prefer my study as opposed to my kitchen.

I am heartened by the posts here from folks that find the ATF to be a reasonable agency with which to deal, even if all of us agree that the laws the ATF must enforce somewhat draconian.

Mike

Deanimator
August 9, 2007, 04:35 PM
And some of us also think that ATF in general is asked to do a hard and occasionally dangerous job that is nonetheless critical for public safety. As with any government policy, no one thinks it's perfect. However many of us like the idea that a federal agency monitors the sale in firearms and explosives - to help restrict the availability of firearms and explosives to criminals and terrorists.

Because the job is "occasionally dangerous", by and large the BATFE prefers to prosecute technical offenses by non-criminals. Can you explain how many gun sales constitutes being "in the buseiness"? The BATFE can't seem to.

Many of us DON'T like the idea of a federal agency which puts on racially segregated parties at public expense and which adopts perjury as official policy, backed up by a training video on HOW TO LIE UNDER OATH.

No matter how you spin it, the BATFE has about as much credibility as a Dan Rather source on George Bush's National Guard service. When you LIE, UNDER OATH, the presumption of truthfulness goes away. And for the BATFE, it most certainly has.

Soybomb
August 9, 2007, 04:47 PM
I've never heard any FFL tell me that the ATF is okay with sloppy paperwork, this is nothing new.

RuffRidr
August 9, 2007, 05:00 PM
For those that don't think the BATFE is actively trying to shut down FFL's, I have a question. How do you explain an 80% decrease in FFL's between 1994 and 2005? http://www.vpc.org/press/0603dealers.htm

Also, on the Red's Trading Post thing. I think the original violations were in 2000 when the place was changing ownership between family members. Since then they've had 3 audits I believe. The first 2 nothing was found. On the 3rd one, they came up with clerical errors that covered .4% of all the transactions. The BATFE is saying that these errors were 'willful'. This is stuff like using 'Y' instead of 'Yes' and abbreviating the states. Their license has been revoked and they are on an appeal process now I believe. I'm sorry, but I don't think that is right at all.

--RuffRidr

Prince Yamato
August 9, 2007, 08:05 PM
How do you explain an 80% decrease in FFL's between 1994 and 2005?

Capitalism and the internet.

I'm pretty sure that Cheaperthandirt, AIMsurplus, and a myriad of others have cut into some of the mid-level FFLs. What did Lee Iaccoca used to say? "Lead, follow, or get out of the way".

I too find it heartening to know that I'm not the only one who is sick of the conspiracy theories concerning the ATF. I'm not their #1 fan, but on the other hand, I am glad that someone is monitoring explosive sales and preventing people from diluting wine with anti-freeze.

Just curious, do people on the Cigar Aficionado boards complain about the ATF as much as the gun people do? We can't get German FALs in the US, they can't get Cuban cigars. Yes, it's a cabal! I think some of you need to put down your copies of the Turner Diaries and take a Prozac.

"blah blah blah Ruby Ridge, blah blah blah Waco, blah blah blah darling with you."

If Irving Berlin were alive today, he'd write a song about you conspiracy theorists.

zoom6zoom
August 9, 2007, 08:26 PM
triple post, weird.

You must have an M-16 selector installed. Better get rid of it before the F Troop finds it!

RPCVYemen
August 9, 2007, 10:55 PM
I too find it heartening to know that I'm not the only one who is sick of the conspiracy theories concerning the ATF. I'm not their #1 fan, but on the other hand, I am glad that someone is monitoring explosive sales and preventing people from diluting wine with anti-freeze.

The internet (and particularly gun forums) tend to over-represent extreme/wacky views. I would guess that less than a tenth of a percent of the American population believes that there was any kind of conspiracy about Ruby Ridge. I think that a more folks - maybe 5% - believe that there was some kind of mistake at Waco - probably not many of them attribute it to the ATF.

Mike

Kilgor
August 9, 2007, 10:59 PM
RPCVYemen,

Just curious, but from what part of the country do you hail?

I'm betting the Northeast, west coast, or around Chicago.

RPCVYemen
August 9, 2007, 11:06 PM
Raleigh, NC

Red State.

BTW, when I took a political "test" referred by Eugene Volokh's (a pro-gun Constitutional lawyer's) site, I was smack dab in the middle on the right to left scale, and something like a 60 on the interventionist/libertarian scale (where 0 = interventionist and 100 = absolute libertarian). That make me smack dab middle of the road politically, but more libertarian than 60% of the population.

If you know more than two people who buy into all the wacky Ruby Ridge/David Koresh conspiracy theories - you're probably a wacko! :) I'd probbaly still enjoy shooting with you ...

I think this is the test I used - but I am not sure:

http://www.politicalcompass.org/

Mike

Kilgor
August 9, 2007, 11:12 PM
Close enough to the Northeast... :neener:

I think you'd find a hell of a lot higher percentage than that in the South and Southwest.

Yikes, I guess I'm a wacko because I know several more than two.

Kilgor
August 9, 2007, 11:43 PM
Puts me as neither authoritarian or libertarian, but 3 (out of 10) to the right.

I don't think the test is very valid as I tend to identify with libertarians a lot more than the neo-cons.

Cliff47
August 9, 2007, 11:47 PM
Sounds to me like the spokane, WA office of the BATFE has been watching the old 'Lexx' series, and believing their own headlines.

daniel (australia)
August 10, 2007, 01:40 AM
Foreigners have a bad impression of ATF, for whatever that is worth.


Speaking as a foreigner, what I do find rather odd is that there can be no infringement of the right to keep and bear arms, but yet acceptance of what looks like a pretty significant degree of infringement when it comes to the purchase and sale thereof. We're somewhat further down that road of course, but it is only a generation ago that even this level of interference would have been unthinkable here.

JohnKSa
August 10, 2007, 02:37 AM
That's just paranoia run amok. I've purchased at least 10 guns in the last year from 3 different dealers and I've used "VA" on all of the 4473's with no complaints.You may not get complaints, but odds are the dealer will--at least in my area.

I have talked to two local dealers in my area who claim to have been threatened with loss of license for abbreviations used on forms or other similarly nitpicky issues. They're actually not getting shut down or losing their licenses, they're definitely getting hassled. One of the two (pawn shop owner) decided that the hassle wasn't worth it and no longer sells firearms.

Kentucky
August 10, 2007, 10:26 AM
Speaking as a foreigner, what I do find rather odd is that there can be no infringement of the right to keep and bear arms, but yet acceptance of what looks like a pretty significant degree of infringement when it comes to the purchase and sale thereof. We're somewhat further down that road of course, but it is only a generation ago that even this level of interference would have been unthinkable here.

Daniel,

It is amazing how many "gun" people fall for this junk here in America. They have no real concept of what true liberty is. When someone says, "I'm glad the government is watching over....." it makes me want to puke. Below are some excerpts from an article I am writing.

"The ideal tyranny is that which is ignorantly self-administered by its victims. The most perfect slaves are, therefore, those which blissfully and unwarily enslave themselves." Dresden James

When we reach Amendment IX we read that The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people. Now what did the Founding Fathers mean by this?

To really understand requires reading and studying more about the history of how our country was formed, and what fears the Founding Fathers were addressing with the Constitution. It can be summed up somewhat by saying that the intent of the framers of the Constitution was to give very limited powers to the Federal government, and the Bill of Rights was added ensure that the government did not begin to infringe upon the rights of the people. There was actually quite a lot of opposition to including the Bill of Rights by certain people. The reason for the opposition was that they were afraid that specifically acknowledging certain rights could lead the government to act as if any rights not acknowledged in these amendments would be infringed upon. See the attached article from Wikipedia detailing this.

So from careful study of the Ninth Amendment we realize that the Federal Government has no lawful authority to infringe on the peoples rights in any fashion, and should operate only under the guidelines set out in the Constitution. If this were not enough then we also come to the last amendment in the Bill of Rights, the Tenth Amendment. 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. This should make it clear to anyone that the intent of the Founders was that the Federal Government should NOT usurp this type of power.

Alexander Hamilton made this crystal clear when he argued in the Federalist papers regarding the ninth Amendment. I go further, and affirm that bills of rights, in the sense and in the extent in which they are contended for, are not only unnecessary in the proposed constitution, but would even be dangerous. They would contain various exceptions to powers which are not granted; and on this very account, would afford a colourable pretext to claim more than were granted. For why declare that things shall not be done which there is no power to do? Why for instance, should it be said, that the liberty of the press shall not be restrained, when no power is given by which restrictions may be imposed? I will not contend that such a provision would confer a regulating power; but it is evident that it would furnish, to men disposed to usurp, a plausible pretence for claiming that power.

"If we stuck to the Constitution as written, we would have: no federal meddling in our schools; no Federal Reserve; no U.S. membership in the UN; no gun control; and no foreign aid. We would have no welfare for big corporations, or the "poor"; no American troops in 100 foreign countries; no NAFTA, GATT, or "fast-track"; no arrogant federal judges usurping states rights; no attacks on private property; no income tax. We could get rid of most of the cabinet departments, most of the agencies, and most of the budget. The government would be small, frugal, and limited." Representative Ron Paul (R-Texas), 1998


Necessity is the plea for every infringement of human freedom. It is the argument of tyrants; it is the creed of slaves. - William Pitt

"Good intentions will always be pleaded for every assumption of authority...the Constitution was made to guard against the dangers of good intentions. There are men in all ages who mean to govern well, but they mean to govern. They promise to be good masters, but they mean to be masters." - Noah Webster

I am also reminded of the words of Benjamin Franklin which apply aptly to this topic. Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety.

"It is natural to man to indulge in the illusions of hope. We are apt to shut our eyes against a painful truth, and listen to the song of that siren, till she transforms us into beasts. Is this the part of the wise men, engaged in a great and arduous struggle for liberty? Are we disposed to be of the number of those who, having eyes, see not, and having ears, hear not, the things which so nearly concern their temporal salvation? For my part, whatever anguish of the spirit it may cost, I am willing to know the whole truth; to know the worst and to provide for it." Patrick Henry

James Madison said, I believe there are more instances of the abridgment of the freedom of the people by the gradual and silent encroachments of those in power, than by violent and sudden usurpations.

"Single acts of tyranny may be ascribed to the accidental opinion of the day, but a series of oppressions, begun at a distinguished period, unalterable through every change of ministers, too plainly prove a deliberate, systematical plan of reducing us to slavery." Thomas Jefferson

I better go ahead and throw this one in.

"You need only reflect that one of the best ways to get yourself a reputation as a dangerous citizen these days is to go about repeating the very phrases which our founding fathers used in the struggle for independence." Charles Austin Beard, American Historian, 1874-1948

joab
August 10, 2007, 10:43 AM
We're somewhat further down that road of course, but it is only a generation ago that even this level of interference would have been unthinkable here.It's the whole boiled frog thing

DMF
August 10, 2007, 11:21 AM
. . . requiring a place of business . . . The law requires that. You have to operate the business out of the physical location specified on the license. The exception is gunshows. Every FFL knows this. Those who won't comply risk losing their license.

DMF
August 10, 2007, 11:26 AM
Yes the have to abide by the same rules, but no, the level of scrutiny is significantly greater on Type 01 FFLs that do not have a storefront.

Clinton put most of the "kitchen table dealers" (which is what I assume a "private FFL" is) out of business, but not all of them ... the ATF is continuing his policies of harassment of these FFLs.BS. As long as someone is complying with the local laws, including zoning laws, all of which CONGRESS, not ATF, requires of licensees, then "kitchen table dealers" have no problems.

A friend of mine is a so called "kitchen table dealer," meaning he operates his business out of his home. Not only has he not been harrassed by ATF, or had problems during the Clinton administration, he actually got his license during the Clinton administration, and has stated several time that ATF has been very helpful on several occasions. However, he complies with the local laws for running a business, including the zoning laws. Although he does often complain that they take too long processing paperwork, especially when he's buying another NFA gun.

DMF
August 10, 2007, 11:36 AM
I have been told by my local dealer if you do not have a
business license, store front, business insurance, etc. you can forget
about ATF approving a FFL.Wow, the ATF won't approve an FFL if someone won't comply with the local laws for running a business?!?! I'm shocked! (that's sarcasm in case you missed it)

FFLs are for people engaged in the business of selling firearms, therefore if aren't complying with the local requirements for running business, CONGRESSS says you can't have an FFL.

RPCVYemen
August 10, 2007, 12:00 PM
... all of which CONGRESS, not ATF, requires ...

That point seems critical to me.

Some may not agree with the way that the Founding Fathers devised our government - but I do. The Founding Fathers devised three branches - legislative, executive, and judicial - with division of power for each and some checks and balances on each. They were extremely suspicious of any one branch both legislating and enforcing laws, so they separated those powers - the legislative branch legislates, and the executive branch (of which the ATF is a bureau) enforces the laws.

It is a puzzle to me that some folks can quote fairly obscure founding fathers at great length, but don't understand the fundamental structure of the government.

I have lived in a country where the law was whatever the secret police said that it was - Mogadishu in the late 80's. I really, really did not like that experience.

Mike

Carl N. Brown
August 10, 2007, 04:24 PM
Quote Carl N. Brown (Tennessee):
""It used to be you could get an FFL, and as long as you followed the rules, you could work out of your kitchen.""

Answer zeroskillz (Texas):
""That is still the case my friend. I prefer my study as opposed to my kitchen.""

Quote Carl N. Brown:
""I have been told by my local dealer if you do not have a
business license, store front, business insurance, etc. you can forget
about ATF approving a FFL.""

Answer DMF:
""Wow, the ATF won't approve an FFL if someone won't comply with the local laws for running a business?!?! I'm shocked! (that's sarcasm in case you missed it)
""FFLs are for people engaged in the business of selling firearms, therefore if aren't complying with the local requirements for running business, CONGRESSS says you can't have an FFL.""

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Here is the source of my conspiracy theories; by the way,
I have never read nor care to read the Turner Diaries.
I watched the Ruby Ridge hearings on CSPAN and even
Diane Feinstein found some of the things government agents
did were out of line. Those who forget the past are doomed
to relive it; those who do not learn from past mistakes
repeat them.

Carl N. Brown
August 10, 2007, 04:33 PM
I would post the Department of Justice Office of Inspector General
report about the ATF Good Ol' Boys Roundup, but I hope it's ancient
history; besides, I don't want to upset Art's Granmaw.

No, really, the ATF is a perfect agency above criticism and has never
ever done anything wrong, and O'Brien you can take the rat cage off
my face now, I Love Big Brother, I Love Big Brother, I Love Big Brother.

Deanimator
August 10, 2007, 05:23 PM
I watched the Ruby Ridge hearings on CSPAN and even
Diane Feinstein found some of the things government agents
did were out of line. Those who forget the past are doomed
to relive it; those who do not learn from past mistakes
repeat them.

Even the DoJ itself concluded that the Rules of Engagement at Ruby Ridger were in direct violation of the Constitution.

I believe I met Lon Horiuchi when I was stationed at Camp Howze, ROK. If so, I can easily believe that he'd shoot a woman in the head holding a baby.

Deanimator
August 10, 2007, 05:25 PM
I would post the Department of Justice Office of Inspector General
report about the ATF Good Ol' Boys Roundup, but I hope it's ancient
history; besides, I don't want to upset Art's Granmaw.
It WASN'T "old business" when the BATF settled with the Black agents for $4.3 million. Of course, neither were the "***** hunting licenses" on the wall in the OK City BATF office...

Kentucky
August 10, 2007, 06:18 PM
Some may not agree with the way that the Founding Fathers devised our government - but I do. The Founding Fathers devised three branches - legislative, executive, and judicial - with division of power for each and some checks and balances on each. They were extremely suspicious of any one branch both legislating and enforcing laws, so they separated those powers - the legislative branch legislates, and the executive branch (of which the ATF is a bureau) enforces the laws.

It is a puzzle to me that some folks can quote fairly obscure founding fathers at great length, but don't understand the fundamental structure of the government.

Not sure if this was directed at me but I assume so based on the quotes I presented earlier. I too wholeheartedly agree with how the Founding Fathers et up our government, but I think you are displaying a lack of understanding.

I personally don't object a bit to the BATFE monitoring the sale of firearms or explosives. It seems to me that explosives, controlled drugs are all very powerful tools in the right hands. Unfortunately, they are also all prone to abuse in the wrong hands. That is why they are monitored.

Any student of the early days of American history can tell you that the framers of our Constitution and leading revolutionaries, notably men such as Jefferson, Samuel Adams, Patrick Henry, and Thomas Paine, subscribed to the "Natural Law" point of view which was taught by John Locke and Thomas Aquinas.

Natural Law states that the Rights of free men are inalienable, and that the only real crime is something that is done to harm another person. (Stealing, murdering, raping, etc...) This is known as Malum Prohibitum, which means that a crime is a crime only if someone says that it is, vs Malum in se which is a crime that is inherently wrong. An example of Malum Prohibitum would be building an addition to your house that violates a city zoning code. It is a crime only because there is a law against. However, burning down your neighbors building would be a crime committed Malum in se, which means it is wrong whether it is against the law or not.

Positive Law states that rights are derived only from a government, and that there are no such thing as inalienable rights. According to Positive Law, if the government decides that you have no right to own property then you dont. If the government decides that a government official has the right to spend the first night with your wife when you are married, then they have that right. Obviously this is very much contrary to our American way of thinking, at least in this example.

In short, Natural Law protects the Rights and Liberties of individuals, Positive Law says only that you have whatever rights the government chooses to give to you. Natural Law makes killing someone a crime. Positive Law makes possessing the materials or even knowledge to kill someone a crime.

You see, a crime should only be something that harms another person. If someone commits a crime then they should be brought to justice in a manner that befits the crime. However, what you see is our government regulating OBJECTS, (not crimes!). Their laws turn Law-Abiding American citizens into criminals when they have committed no crime, only because they have the ability to commit the crime.

This is an inherently flawed strategy for a few reasons.
1. Criminals will not obey laws like these, if they obeyed laws they wouldnt be criminals in the first place.
2. Even if you could magically make all the guns in the world disappear it will do NOTHING to reduce crime, but it will cause the weaker people to be defenseless against those who are stronger.
3. Taking firearms from law-abiding citizens means not only that they cant protect themselves from criminals, but also that they have no way to protect themselves from their own government? Do I need to outline the history of gun control and government murdering it's own citizens?

I cant say this too strongly, you must punish CRIMINALS who commit CRIMES, not citizens who have done no wrong!

Now if you spend any amount of time studying our Constitution, the Bill of Rights, and the other writings of the Founding Fathers it is VERY obvious that they intended the Federal Government to have very limited powers. They had the powers to provide for the common defense, and to levy taxes to support that cause. All other powers were conveyed to the states or local municipalities. The Federal Government was not designed to have oversight over a fraction of the areas that it has assumed today.

Now ask yourself this question. Do you believe the government has your best interests at heart? Really! Ask yourself, does the government really only care about my safety and how well I am doing? Unless you are hopelessly delusional you will have to answer no. So the question becomes, why do they so enthusiastically seek to control oversight of things like this?

The answers are power, control, and money. Power and control come from disarming the population. You CANNOT control an armed population! They also generate a large amount of revenue and are able to create even more bureaucracies with the agencies that "regulate" these things.

So when you as a citizens not only are willing to accept, but WANT the Federal Government to regulate, oversee, and control things such as this then you are a willing destroyer of the principles that this country was founded upon. Those who still seek this "oversight" are concerned more for their own safety then they are about infringing on the Rights and Liberties of American citizens. Such cowardice and lack of character are so despicably sickening to me that I do feel physically ill when contemplating it.

I would love to hear John Ross weigh in on this thread, he can illustrate these points so much better than I can.

P.S. I have avoided using quotes from those Founding Fathers this time around so that no one is offended.

RPCVYemen
August 10, 2007, 07:14 PM
Any student of the early days of American history can tell you that the framers of our Constitution and leading revolutionaries, notably men such as Jefferson, Samuel Adams, Patrick Henry, and Thomas Paine, subscribed to the "Natural Law" point of view which was taught by John Locke and Thomas Aquinas.


Any student of the early days of American history can tell you that the framers of our Constitution and leading revolutionaries were a very diverse group of people some of whom believed "Natural Law", and some of whom did not. There were a lot of folks - Utilitarians for example (John Stuart Mill, etc.) who thought Natural Law was bunk.

Natural Law states that the Rights of free men are inalienable,...

"Natural Law" was one of a may politicial theories floating around at the time of the American Revolution. There is no endorsement of "Natural Law" in the Constitution, and no mention of "inalienable rights" in the Constitution. At least not the one I read.

Now if you spend any amount of time studying our Constitution, the Bill of Rights, and the other writings of the Founding Fathers it is VERY obvious that they intended the Federal Government to have very limited powers.

But if we look at their actions, it is VERY obvious that they did not intend the Federal Government to have very limited powers!

James Madison - often quoted a as proponent of limited government - as Secretary of State of State found the the Federal Government had the power the make the Louisiana Purchase.

Thomas Jefferson - also often quoted a as proponent of limited government - imposed an unpopular embargo, and when that didn't work, asserted the right to seize privater property without warrants and to arrest anyone whom the government thought might be contemplating violating the Embargo Act.

Which speaks louder? Actions or words?

At any rate, the point of my post was that blaming the ATF for the regulations they are supposed to enforce is wrong-headed. They are a part of the Legislative Branch.

Mike

Deanimator
August 10, 2007, 08:38 PM
At any rate, the point of my post was that blaming the ATF for the regulations they are supposed to enforce is wrong-headed.
Whom should we blame for their institutional racism and OFFICIAL POLICY of LYING UNDER OATH?

bg
August 11, 2007, 03:21 AM
Here is how the Government is looking at for at least one particular dealer
up Idaho way..Kinda gives you a warm cozy feelin'. huh..
http://www.magicvalley.com/articles/2007/08/10/news/local_state/118168.txt
excerpt

Gun store's attorney: ATF exaggerated intimidation
By Cass Friedman
Times-News writer
TWIN FALLS - Nothing much happened and the complaints came too late.

That's how a Boise attorney responded to a federal agency's claim that his client, the manager of a local gun store, harassed and intimidated agents until they left the store.

The U.S. Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives exaggerated its July 17 claim that Red's Trading Post Manager Ryan Horsley intimidated its agents, wrote Horsley's attorney, Mark S. Geston, in a response filed Aug. 6 in federal court.

While ATF is yanking Red's license, citing numerous violations, a federal judge has allowed the store to continue operating until the judge decides if there is sufficient grounds to reverse the ruling.

On July 17, photos snapped. Video cameras rolled.

An ostensible death threat appeared on Horsely's Web blog, according to court documents. He posted information about who the agents were, what car they drove and where they were staying. And he allowed a local media into the store.

But on Aug. 6, Geston said the inspectors do not have a legal right to operate "under a cloak of secrecy." He said some of the alleged acts of intimidation came only after inspectors abandoned the store and could not have been what prompted them to leave.

These acts, however, spook-ed an ATF area supervisor and two agents to halt what they were doing midway through a July 17 inspection at Red's, Assistant U.S. Attorney Deborah Ferguson wrote in a status report filed three days later in federal court.

Attorney Mark Geston sees things differently:

A public audit

Geston said in his response that no statute, regulation or any order of federal court prohibits the public to document the audit as it takes place.

"It should not be objectionable if (Horsley) tells (his) fellow citizens that a public agency is pursuing its public duties in a public place," Geston wrote.

Feeling threatened

At no point did the agents request that Horsley allow them to conduct their audit in a private room. Never did they feel prompted to call the local police. It was also the second time the news team approached the agents. A prior appearance by the press on June 18 did not seem to have spooked the agents.

An individual who snapped photographs, identified as Al Russo, was not nearly as ominous as described by the ATF, wrote Geston.

"Mr. Russo is about 70 years old," Geston wrote. "He had on a Hawaiian shirt and a digital camera. This did not seem menacing "
Man o man...:rolleyes:

Kentucky
August 11, 2007, 11:09 PM
RPCVY,

I completely misunderstood the point of your posts, which you say was to point out that the ATF does not make laws, it only enforces them. Now judging by the experiences that some of these other posters have had, there are some agents who are merely doing their job and are reasonable in doing it. (I still maintain that according to the Constitution the whole organization is unlawful). But I think it is naive to think that the institution as a whole does not have a bias against private gun ownership, and that many of the leaders are using the ATF to further their own political agenda, in ways that often trample the rights of American citizens.

Here is an example. Attached is a copy of the brand new 4473's which were just sent out by the ATF.

http://www.thefirearmsforum.com/attachment.php?attachmentid=13987&stc=1&d=1186711247

They are implementing this change BEFORE the law is even passed. This quote is from Marlin_T on thefirearmsforum.

Correct me if I’m wrong here, but they are going to impose a law that hasn’t become law yet. As a matter of fact the new proposed Leahy-McCarthy still doesn’t even have a bill number yet!

Those members of the house should be ashamed of themselves, no debate, no roll call vote!!! But back on topic, what if the Leahy-McCarthy measure doesn’t pass into law? What is going to happen to this new 4473 form?

Does the BATF think they are better than congress and IMPOSE their own laws on the people of the US? It seems that this is indeed the case, beings that sometime in September the unnumbered bill might be up for debate, and the date for the revised 4473 is to be implemented Sept. 1st. What a bunch of crap.

RPCVYemen
August 11, 2007, 11:42 PM
They are implementing this change BEFORE the law is even passed.

I couldn't quite tell what you are objecting to. Is is the revision of the question 11.f? What was the old form of the question?

Mike

jpk1md
August 11, 2007, 11:51 PM
P.l 109-162.

RPCVYemen
August 12, 2007, 12:00 AM
P.l 109-162.

Can you give us a little context?

Mike

jpk1md
August 12, 2007, 12:04 AM
Can you give us a little context?

Mike

Read post 97

RPCVYemen
August 12, 2007, 01:00 AM
Read post 97

What part of your post is relevant to post 97? I am not arguing, I am just trying to figure out what you are saying.

Mike

HiroProX
August 12, 2007, 03:21 AM
I wonder why he appears to be as pure as the driven snow????

And yet you extend that assumption to a government agency with a very bad track record.

jpk1md
August 12, 2007, 07:26 AM
Mike, read the form posted in Post 97 and see Definitions.

RPCVYemen
August 12, 2007, 09:50 AM
Mike, read the form posted in Post 97 and see Definitions.

Could state your point, and then tell us which of the 176 pages you posted supports that point?

Or is it the case that your point can only be understood if all 176 pages are read?

Mike

deadin
August 12, 2007, 11:19 AM
And yet you extend that assumption to a government agency with a very bad track record.

Yes, I agree. However I look at the BATFE as a necesary evil and at the end of the day, I feel that they have done more good than evil. We need some kind of a watchdog, and they're it. The best we can do is to try to get rid of the "rouge" agents and supervisors, not the whole agency.
A maverick gunstore is not needed and does nothing for RKBA other than turn more fence sitters against us.
BTW, IIRC Red's had been given any number of warnings that their paperwork was not up to snuff and they chose to either ignore the warnings or to basically tell the BATFE to "go to Hell, we will do what we want". Under these conditions is it any suprise that they got slapped down?

spartacus2002
August 12, 2007, 11:22 AM
FWIW, I have had conversations with FFLs who say ATF told them NO ABBREVIATIONS WHATSOEVER on the 4473. And I have had conversations with FFLs who say ATF says VA is OK for Virginia.

Guess it depends on the ATF agents they dealt with. Like any organization, some have common sense, some are bureaucratic donkeys.

JohnKSa
August 12, 2007, 03:44 PM
FWIW, I have had conversations with FFLs who say ATF told them NO ABBREVIATIONS WHATSOEVER on the 4473. And I have had conversations with FFLs who say ATF says VA is OK for Virginia.Same here. In fact one FFL I spoke with told me that he had had different agents tell him different things different times. He was one who was hassled during an audit over the abbreviations. They separated out every form with the state abbreviation used and called them all errors. When he told them that he had called the BATFE office and had been told that the state abbreviations were ok, they immediately dropped it. What this tells me is that the auditors ALREADY knew it was ok but they were still going to try to count them against him as errors and WOULD have had he not called them on their BS.

Deanimator
August 12, 2007, 04:38 PM
Yes, I agree. However I look at the BATFE as a necesary evil and at the end of the day, I feel that they have done more good than evil. We need some kind of a watchdog, and they're it. The best we can do is to try to get rid of the "rouge" agents and supervisors, not the whole agency.
It was not a "rouge"(sic) agent or supervisor who made PERJURY OFFICIAL AGENCY POLICY. That was a MANAGEMENT DECISION from the TOP. It was not stopped UNTIL it got media and judicial attention.

You could argue that it was the "rouge"(sic) Eugene Rightmyer who got the ball rolling with the Good Old Boy's Roundup, but it was ONLY media attention which got it stopped. Apparently organizing RACIALLY SEGREGATED functions out of BATF offices, on government time, using agency resources, operated and attended by BATF personnel wasn't seen as a problem at ANY level of the BATF UNTIL it came to the attention of "60 Minutes" and others. It didn't stop because anyone in the BATF thought that publicly funded White supremacist activity was wrong. It stopped because they got CAUGHT, and it was EMBARRASSING.

The BATF is ONLY necessary if you see some need for INSTITUTIONAL PERJURY and RACISM.

RPCVYemen
August 12, 2007, 06:15 PM
It was not a "rouge"(sic) agent or supervisor who made PERJURY OFFICIAL AGENCY POLICY. That was a MANAGEMENT DECISION from the TOP. It was not stopped UNTIL it got media and judicial attention.

I hate to stir the pot, but when you mention this, and cite the video, wouldn't it be more fair to at least cite the immediate official repudiation of the comments on the video by the ATF? The repudiation by the ATF was very clear - that agents are never to commit perjury, and the if asked to testify to the accuracy of the database, they are to testify truthfully as to the error rate. Even if you believe the repudiation was false cover, wouldn't it be more honest to at least cite the repudiation?

Apparently organizing RACIALLY SEGREGATED functions out of BATF offices,...

Wouldn't it also be more honest to cite the DOJ investigation that found no evidence that any of those stories were true? You may believe them to be true - that's your right, but I think it would be more honest it point out that you believe them to be true in the face of DOJ investigation which found the stories to be unfounded.

Here is the report of Department of Justice investigation into the "Good Ole Boy Roundup":

http://www.usdoj.gov/oig/special/9603/

It turns out the the main "witness" peddling the story to 60 minutes was asked to leave the Roundup because of his racist views:

After several months Hayward agreed to turn over the original videotape and to submit to an on-the-record interview under oath. For the first several hours of this interview, Hayward was permitted to tell his story without any cross-examination. However, once OIG began to ask questions regarding aspects Hayward had omitted, including his advocacy of white supremacist views and his having been asked to leave the Roundup because of his racist views, Hayward and his attorney became agitated and terminated the interview.

It is true that some black agents filed and won a suit against the ATF, on workplace discrimination issues (assignments and career advancement). Sadly that kind of discrimination has resulted in successful suits against almost every agency in the federal government (Secret Service, FBI, State Department, etc).

Mike

deadin
August 12, 2007, 06:16 PM
The BATF is ONLY necessary if you see some need for INSTITUTIONAL PERJURY and RACISM.
bbzzzzrpzzzbzzzzweeeeepweeeeepbzzzz..... Can't hear over the static

Deanimator
August 12, 2007, 06:53 PM
It is true that some black agents filed and won a suit against the ATF, on workplace discrimination issues (assignments and career advancement). Sadly that kind of discrimination has resulted in successful suits against almost every agency in the federal government (Secret Service, FBI, State Department, etc).
But you should know from the suit that things went MUCH farther than mere "assignments and career advancement". There was outright harassment and intimidation, to include the posting of "***** hunting licenses" in government offices.

RPCVYemen
August 12, 2007, 07:20 PM
There was outright harassment and intimidation, to include the posting of "***** hunting licenses" in government offices.

From the report:

In light of overwhelming evidence to the contrary, Jeffrey Randall's claim that "****** hunting licenses" were freely handed around at the 1995 Roundup and that one was found on a urinal in one of the bathrooms is not credible.


Substantial credible evidence exists that the Roundup was not initially intended to have a "whites-only" policy or to be a racist event. Minorities were invited to and did attend Roundups. On the whole, however, the majority of attendees were white males. And while minorities were theoretically welcome to attend Roundups, their experiences varied, with some feeling welcome and returning year after year and others greeted by racial slurs and leaving early. In a number of years, particularly since 1990, racist conduct occurred which would make minority attendees, particularly African Americans, feel unwelcome, making it clear that not all participants shared the view that everyone was welcome to attend.

Mike

jpk1md
August 12, 2007, 07:25 PM
Could state your point, and then tell us which of the 176 pages you posted supports that point?

Or is it the case that your point can only be understood if all 176 pages are read?

Mike

Mike, its clearly a supporting reference......read it if you want, ignore it if you don't.

In any case lets cut the combative posts.

RPCVYemen
August 12, 2007, 08:02 PM
Mike, its clearly a supporting reference......read it if you want, ignore it if you don't.

In any case lets cut the combative posts.

I am sincerely not trying to be combative. I read post #97, and I looked quickly at the document you posted. I can't tell from your post if you are agreeing with something in post #97, or disagreeing.

Can you just tell me your point? That isn't intended to be combative. I sincerely do not have he foggiest clue as to what your point is. Can you say it in a sentence?

Mike

Deanimator
August 12, 2007, 08:15 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Deanimator
There was outright harassment and intimidation, to include the posting of "***** hunting licenses" in government offices.
From the report:

Quote:
In light of overwhelming evidence to the contrary, Jeffrey Randall's claim that "****** hunting licenses" were freely handed around at the 1995 Roundup and that one was found on a urinal in one of the bathrooms is not credible.

Quote:
Substantial credible evidence exists that the Roundup was not initially intended to have a "whites-only" policy or to be a racist event. Minorities were invited to and did attend Roundups. On the whole, however, the majority of attendees were white males. And while minorities were theoretically welcome to attend Roundups, their experiences varied, with some feeling welcome and returning year after year and others greeted by racial slurs and leaving early. In a number of years, particularly since 1990, racist conduct occurred which would make minority attendees, particularly African Americans, feel unwelcome, making it clear that not all participants shared the view that everyone was welcome to attend.
Mike
The "****** hunting licenses" were posted in the OK City BATF office. That was one of the elements of the Black BATF agents' suit. That means it either happened or the Black agents were lying.

Let's see, I can believe the Black agents or I can believe an agency for whom LYING UNDER OATH was OFFICIAL POLICY. I once debated this with a retired BATF agent (who PRAISED the Nazi gun control laws) who called them liars... without any [overt] basis for that claim. Based on his praise for National Socialist legislation, it wasn't too hard to figure out the actual basis for his assessment...

jpk1md
August 12, 2007, 10:14 PM
I am sincerely not trying to be combative. I read post #97, and I looked quickly at the document you posted. I can't tell from your post if you are agreeing with something in post #97, or disagreeing.

Can you just tell me your point? That isn't intended to be combative. I sincerely do not have he foggiest clue as to what your point is. Can you say it in a sentence?

Mike

Gee Mike, I'm really surprised you didn't see in the form posted in Post 97 that there were changes to definition of Misdemeanor Crimes of Violence and DOJ Reauth Act etc etc and it referenced a doc which I posted as a reference for anyone so inclined to read it.

If thats not clear Mike then just let it go as further discussion adds absolutely nothing to the topic at hand.

RPCVYemen
August 12, 2007, 11:29 PM
Gee Mike, I'm really surprised you didn't see in the form posted in Post 97 that there were changes to definition of Misdemeanor Crimes of Violence and DOJ Reauth Act etc.

I had not in fact noticed that connection, thank you for pointing it out. Is your overall point that in fact the changes to the 4473 reflected a law that already been passed ion 2005?

If that is your point, I think it is an interesting and valid point.

Thanks,

Mike

Carl N. Brown
August 14, 2007, 04:22 PM
OIG:
"the FBI concluded that Hayward's video taken
at the 1990 Roundup was authentic and had not been altered."

Hayward was a racist cop who documented racism at an out-of-control event
but then who would be more likely to witness such activities?

The OIG found stuff beyond what Hayward claimed, and found witnesses
besides Hayward.

Sometimes when a pot calls a kettle black, it is because the kettle is black.

If you enjoyed reading about "ATF on the prowl" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!