[RM]

I have seen several posts critical of the BATF. Just wondering what legitimate gripes people have. (Sorry if I am ignorant here.) I would also be interested in hearing from gun owners supportive of the agency.

[TallPine]

Well, first of all, where in the Constitution does it give the authority for the federal govt to regulate alcohol, tobaco, or firearms ... :confused:

[Standing Wolf]

I would also be interested in hearing from gun owners supportive of the agency.

Lemme see, here... Uh... Well, ah... Well, uhm... Gee, whillickers! I'm sure I'll be able to think of something.

Oh. Yeah. Got it.

Most B.A.T.F.E. employees take weekly showers.

There. How's that?

[MicroBalrog]

Here's a link (http://www.elfie.org/~croaker/batfabus.html)

[Deepdiver]

Actually, I don't have any issues with the BATF agents. They are just LEO's trying to do a job. I don' t necessarily agree with some of the laws that they are asked to enforce, but that is not their fault.

In fact, the local BATF office (here in Colorado Springs) is doing a "bang-up" job in working with the local LE Agencies to prosecute criminals that use guns illegally in the commission of crimes. They have one of the highest prosecution rates in the country. In case there is any confusion - this is a GOOD thing!!

Unfortunately, like many other government agencies, the higher levels of the organization get somewhat politicized.....and that is a BAD thing!

[Wildalaska]

Never had a problem with them..nor do I know of anyone in Alaska who has had a problem as long as the rules were followed..

WildnotanLEbasherAlaska

[Orthonym]

I don't think the Federal Constitution allows for any cops AT ALL. That's why they used to be part of the Treasury Dept.

National Firearms Act=Marijuana Tax Act, i.e., back then they knew the Govt had no power to forbid owning anything, all it could do was tax it.

Even the marshals used to be part-time contractors, like Rooster Cogburn. :cool:

[SkunkApe]

1) They stage phony raids and kill people to obtain more funding.

2) They seem to be virtually immune to criminal prosecution.

3) Their ranks are mostly with filled macho, over-testosteroned tough guys on a power trip.

[Skunkabilly]

3) Their ranks are mostly with filled macho, over-testosteroned tough guys on a power trip.

:scrutiny: Umm...now I don't know any BATFE agents personally but that's quite a broad brush there.

BATF = Ban All That's Fun :D

[BenW]

I don't deny that the BATF has done some pretty crummy things during raids (in fact I'm sure a search of any of the gun forums I'm on will find posts by me getting worked up about cat stomping activities and such). But that's not the entire BATF. I've found nothing but pleasant, helpful people in my dealings with them on the C&R front.

I'm by no means refuting the argument that constitutionally there shouldn't be a BATF, but they're certainly not all cat stompers. I'm sure just like anywhere else in society, you'll find pro gun and anti gun people in the BATF. Unfortunately it seems it's the anti-gun BATFers that pull no-knock raid duty. :(

[vmi93]

"BATFE; We're not ALL kitten-stompers."

maybe

"BATFE; Now with 20% less kitten-stomping."

or

"BATFE, Not setting children on fire for almost 10 years."

:D

[MicroBalrog]

Or should we haul out Cramer again?:neener:

[tyme]

Which would the founding fathers support more, the polite, helpful people who would nonetheless haul you to jail for not paying a tax on a 60yo weapon, or a local corner drug dealer?

Many BATFE employees may be polite and helpful, but I don't see the relevance of that at all. They chose their line of work. They chose their employer. They know, or ought to know, the bad things their employer does. Unlike private-sector employees, they are government agents, and as such they have a responsibility to uphold the Consitution. While a peasant at Enron was not responsible for that disaster, the peasant at the BATFE who does nothing while other BATFE agents violate the highest law is culpable for every consequence of their coworkers' actions.

By allowing entities like the BATFE to exist, this country is making a mockery of the law. The BATFE is permitted to operate under color of law, while violating the Constitution. But if a business or individual tries to operate under a reasonable ethics policy in keeping with the spirit of the law, but violates the letter of the law, that business or individual gets hamstrung in the presence of "justice".

Of course, there are a very few exceptions, in cases where the defendant is so far up the high road even a jury of average citizens is blinded by the light as they try to look, and in cases where the defendant manages to pull enough strings (either with TPTB or by hiring the most expensive lawyer in town) to convince the justice system not to convict.

[BenW]

Many BATFE employees may be polite and helpful, but I don't see the relevance of that at all. They chose their line of work. They chose their employer.

Okay, replace "BATF" with "local Law Enforcement." They chose their line of work as well. There are nice and polite people in law enforcement (many I have seen on this board, many I have interacted with in person) and there are thugs as well. There are terrible State and Local gun laws on the books. Should the good cops all quit because of the bad laws and bad things people in their agencies do? Or should the good cops try and make a difference and keep police forces from turning into "All Storm Troopers, All The Time"?

[John/az]

No. If enough people were to understand what freedom really is, then there would be enough officers that would not enforce such rights-infringing laws, effectively making then null and void.

It is only through choice that these laws even become valid.

That is why jury duty is so important. It allows the people to pass judgement on a law, and to have the final word on whether it is enforced or not.

Why do you think judges tell juries that they are not allowed to judge the merit of the law, and why lawyers are allowed to "weed" out those jurors that may not cast their vote the way they want the case to go.

It's all a tangled mass.

[tyme]

They should try to make a difference. Making a difference within an organization formed solely to violate rights, however, is not constructive. The only way I can see to do it is to help the agency violate rights, hoping that the agency's violation of the NAP will lead to it's demise, either through politics or armed revolt. The difficulty is that first, anyone involved in that will be sacrificing their ethics for the purpose of destroying the agency, and second, that agency happens to be charged with violating a right which is essential to one of those two methods of destruction. Thus if the bid to generate enough unrest fails, given the state of politics in this country, we'd be a short step away from fascism or totalitarianism or communism.

Therefore I think, in the case of the BATFE, that the only viable option for employees wishing to do the right thing is to leave. I don't think people there are not leaving because they've thought the issues through and believe they can make a difference. I think they're not leaving because they are morally corrupt.

[Justin]

In fact, the local BATF office (here in Colorado Springs) is doing a "bang-up" job in working with the local LE Agencies to prosecute criminals that use guns illegally in the commission of crimes. They have one of the highest prosecution rates in the country. In case there is any confusion - this is a GOOD thing!
I probably wouldn't have nearly as much of a problem with this if the laws were clear cut, and dealt only with those crimes that involve a victim, ie murder, fraud, rape, assault, etc.

Unfortunately we live in a world where you can be charged with a felony, thrown in jail, and have the rest of your life marred by a big black mark that says 'convicted felon' simply because you happen to own a chunk of metal that is the wrong shape or made after a certain date. The bit I found amazingly amusing about that particular story was the justification given at the end- "The BATFE is using this program to stop criminals, not to harass hunters or gun collectors."

The fact that the news story had to have a disclaimer like that is, at least to me, indicative of either a corrupt agency, or public perception that is seriously out-of-whack. I'll leave it up to you as to which one is correct.

Having said that, I will say that the one ATFE fellow I've met was a generally pleasant sort, and liked guns. But one positive meeting, or even one amazingly ethical agent a spotless agency does not make.

[TallPine]

Here is a current example in General Discussion ...

http://www.thehighroad.org/showthread.php?s=&threadid=33657

Read it and make up your own minds.