Idaho Senators Stand Up To Batfe
- Thread starter LAR-15
- Start date
- Status
gunsmith
member
don't be a lazy linker! or cut and paster!
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/12/12/AR2007121202438.html
Senators From Idaho Block ATF Nominee
Associated Press
Thursday, December 13, 2007; Page A10
Idaho's U.S. senators are blocking President Bush's nominee to head the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives, saying the agency has become overly aggressive in enforcing gun laws.
Sens. Larry E. Craig and Michael D. Crapo, both Republicans, placed holds on the nomination of federal prosecutor Michael J. Sullivan, the acting ATF director for more than a year. Crapo's spokesman, Lindsay Nothern, said the senator has heard from a number of gun dealers, gun owners and others in Idaho who "have concerns about ATF policies regarding gun sales and even ownership. Maybe the federal government is getting a little too aggressive with people who haven't done anything wrong."
Sullivan, who also serves as U.S. attorney in Massachusetts, was nominated by Bush in March. The Senate Judiciary Committee approved his nomination last month.
Under Senate rules, a single senator, sometimes anonymously, can put a hold on legislative action for months.
ATF had no comment.
Crapo met with Sullivan last week and "had some pointed questions," Nothern said. The senator is still waiting for answers, the spokesman said.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/12/12/AR2007121202438.html
Senators From Idaho Block ATF Nominee
Associated Press
Thursday, December 13, 2007; Page A10
Idaho's U.S. senators are blocking President Bush's nominee to head the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives, saying the agency has become overly aggressive in enforcing gun laws.
Sens. Larry E. Craig and Michael D. Crapo, both Republicans, placed holds on the nomination of federal prosecutor Michael J. Sullivan, the acting ATF director for more than a year. Crapo's spokesman, Lindsay Nothern, said the senator has heard from a number of gun dealers, gun owners and others in Idaho who "have concerns about ATF policies regarding gun sales and even ownership. Maybe the federal government is getting a little too aggressive with people who haven't done anything wrong."
Sullivan, who also serves as U.S. attorney in Massachusetts, was nominated by Bush in March. The Senate Judiciary Committee approved his nomination last month.
Under Senate rules, a single senator, sometimes anonymously, can put a hold on legislative action for months.
ATF had no comment.
Crapo met with Sullivan last week and "had some pointed questions," Nothern said. The senator is still waiting for answers, the spokesman said.
The rabid anti-ATF people have no idea what the agents spend most of their time on. Are their abuses? Certainly, just as with other agencies. But when I was an FFL, I saw pro-gun types leap to the aid of dirty dealers against the ATF, even when it was common knowledge that those same dealers were involved in clearly illegal activities. In some ways, it reminds me of cops protecting their own, even when they go way outside the law.
Most of the attitude people here complain about comes from DC, from the political animals at the top. There are plenty of street agents who are good people at the agent level doing an unpleasant job. They spend their days doing cases against drug dealers and other scum who are giving all gun owners a black eye. And some of them are pro-gun. It's much the same as street cops who support gun ownership vs chiefs who push the anti-gun agenda.
Keep in mind that the NRA, the GOA and other organizations have to keep the horror stories flowing in in order to keep donations up. In the 1980s, Ronald Reagan offered to eliminate the ATF, and the NRA made sure that didn't happen.
I can see why Craig is involved in this. Anything to distract attention from his little 'dalliances' and gain cred with the conservatives.
I agree that the director of ATF should be carefully vetted, and that we need to keep a close eye on this, or any agency. The price of liberty is eternal vigilance. But if you don't want to give ammunition to the antis, quit covering for the dirt bags just because they claim to be pro-gun, or are being abused. The fact of the matter is, most of the people getting arrested and charged have it coming.
Most of the attitude people here complain about comes from DC, from the political animals at the top. There are plenty of street agents who are good people at the agent level doing an unpleasant job. They spend their days doing cases against drug dealers and other scum who are giving all gun owners a black eye. And some of them are pro-gun. It's much the same as street cops who support gun ownership vs chiefs who push the anti-gun agenda.
Keep in mind that the NRA, the GOA and other organizations have to keep the horror stories flowing in in order to keep donations up. In the 1980s, Ronald Reagan offered to eliminate the ATF, and the NRA made sure that didn't happen.
I can see why Craig is involved in this. Anything to distract attention from his little 'dalliances' and gain cred with the conservatives.
I agree that the director of ATF should be carefully vetted, and that we need to keep a close eye on this, or any agency. The price of liberty is eternal vigilance. But if you don't want to give ammunition to the antis, quit covering for the dirt bags just because they claim to be pro-gun, or are being abused. The fact of the matter is, most of the people getting arrested and charged have it coming.
Bartholomew Roberts
Member
Can you substantiate that with some information?
Pretty well known by folks on the inside:
Recall Dingell's concern during hearings (around 1981) to reform (or eliminate) the ATF that ATF agents would dilute the quality of the Secret Service. At that time, ATF was part of the treasury department, and as ATF agents have civil service protection, they could not simply be fired or laid off, but would have to be transferred to equivalent positions is some other Treasury agency. Secret Service was most likely to assume the functions of ATF if the latter was eliminated. FBI did not want the political exposure of enforcing gun laws.
Some cites:
http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,983197-4,00.html
http://books.google.com/books?id=KM...ts=6uBwWKfxFI&sig=_RjExX0tiWBZ2KxjrwCVzgm8BQ4
http://books.google.com/books?id=Vv...ts=JMrQQPKEHW&sig=U60PZspM0IRXp-WpwXNG4cxu6cY
http://www.h-net.org/reviews/showrev.cgi?path=25905954527234
Recall Dingell's concern during hearings (around 1981) to reform (or eliminate) the ATF that ATF agents would dilute the quality of the Secret Service. At that time, ATF was part of the treasury department, and as ATF agents have civil service protection, they could not simply be fired or laid off, but would have to be transferred to equivalent positions is some other Treasury agency. Secret Service was most likely to assume the functions of ATF if the latter was eliminated. FBI did not want the political exposure of enforcing gun laws.
Some cites:
http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,983197-4,00.html
http://books.google.com/books?id=KM...ts=6uBwWKfxFI&sig=_RjExX0tiWBZ2KxjrwCVzgm8BQ4
http://books.google.com/books?id=Vv...ts=JMrQQPKEHW&sig=U60PZspM0IRXp-WpwXNG4cxu6cY
http://www.h-net.org/reviews/showrev.cgi?path=25905954527234
gunsmith
member
Eh, drugs should be legal anyway.
and gun dealers should be no more scrutinized then "bible dealers".
Gun ownership is a RIGHT ... gun control is racist socialist hogwash and the people who died in the Revolutionary War knew it and its about time the gov't figured it out.
If we must have an ATF it should strictly be for making sure that guns are not defective, not for imprisoning dealers who have the temerity to sell to Black people.
and gun dealers should be no more scrutinized then "bible dealers".
Gun ownership is a RIGHT ... gun control is racist socialist hogwash and the people who died in the Revolutionary War knew it and its about time the gov't figured it out.
If we must have an ATF it should strictly be for making sure that guns are not defective, not for imprisoning dealers who have the temerity to sell to Black people.
stevelyn
Member
The last thing we need heading the sturmtruppen of the waffen BATFEces is a MA puke with glowing recommendations from the likes of Kennedy and Kerry to be their gruppenfuhrer.
Bush is showing his true colors by nominating someone like him.
Bush is showing his true colors by nominating someone like him.
Gunnerpalace
Member
Steve, did you read some of the post earlier,
And by the way read up on what the RIAA has done to some people for music,
The IRS and the stuff they have pulled
The FDA repressing useful drugs
And that the NSA is probably reading this, it is government of course there will be problems we slam the ATF, the fair tax people slam the IRS, etc etc.
As for corrupt dealers put them out it will only hurt us in the long run if we have dealers selling to crooks.
And by the way read up on what the RIAA has done to some people for music,
The IRS and the stuff they have pulled
The FDA repressing useful drugs
And that the NSA is probably reading this, it is government of course there will be problems we slam the ATF, the fair tax people slam the IRS, etc etc.
As for corrupt dealers put them out it will only hurt us in the long run if we have dealers selling to crooks.
Bartholomew Roberts
Member
OK, originally you stated:
Which to me implied that the reason the NRA opposed eliminating the ATF was because they wanted to preserve the agency in order to scare gun owners into donating more money. The article you cited from Time Magazine suggests the same thing (though it should be noted that Time Magazine has had a longtime editorial policy of supporting gun control, incuding handgun bans and may not report issues very fairly - particularly in the 1980s when that article was written and there was no alternative media to challenge incorrect info.)
However, your second, third and fourth link state that the NRA blocked the attempt to eliminate ATF because those functions were going to be moved to the Secret Service and the NRA was concerned that the Secret Service would be more efficient in administering gun control as well as harder to lobby against.
It seems to me that those are two entirely different allegations. I'm also a bit skeptical of the fact that almost all of these descriptions of NRA behavior are from authors who support gun control and in some cases have mischaracterized or outright lied about the gun control issue in the past. I know you have to take your sources where you find them and there is certainly ample evidence to document the NRAs attempts to eliminate the ATF and its sudden about face on them. Why that about face happened seems to be less well documented and I don't know that I trust Elliot Spitzer, Michael Bellesiles or Time Magazine to give me an honest assessment of why that was.
Thanks for sharing the info though. Interesting reading at least and I was unaware of the NRA reversal of policy on that issue.
GunTech said:
Which to me implied that the reason the NRA opposed eliminating the ATF was because they wanted to preserve the agency in order to scare gun owners into donating more money. The article you cited from Time Magazine suggests the same thing (though it should be noted that Time Magazine has had a longtime editorial policy of supporting gun control, incuding handgun bans and may not report issues very fairly - particularly in the 1980s when that article was written and there was no alternative media to challenge incorrect info.)
However, your second, third and fourth link state that the NRA blocked the attempt to eliminate ATF because those functions were going to be moved to the Secret Service and the NRA was concerned that the Secret Service would be more efficient in administering gun control as well as harder to lobby against.
It seems to me that those are two entirely different allegations. I'm also a bit skeptical of the fact that almost all of these descriptions of NRA behavior are from authors who support gun control and in some cases have mischaracterized or outright lied about the gun control issue in the past. I know you have to take your sources where you find them and there is certainly ample evidence to document the NRAs attempts to eliminate the ATF and its sudden about face on them. Why that about face happened seems to be less well documented and I don't know that I trust Elliot Spitzer, Michael Bellesiles or Time Magazine to give me an honest assessment of why that was.
Thanks for sharing the info though. Interesting reading at least and I was unaware of the NRA reversal of policy on that issue.
Your critiques are well taken.
I do have serious concerns that the NRA sometimes function more as a revenue gathering machine than a true defender of gun rights. That tends to be true of any large rights organization. Once you have profession staff, perpetuating you own job becomes important, and scary opponents are a great way to boost fund raising. Now, NAACP and many other organizations fall into this category. Without threats, real or imagined, their ability to raise money declines.
FWIW, I'm still an NRA life member.
BTW, anyone here read Ricochet by Feldmen?
I do have serious concerns that the NRA sometimes function more as a revenue gathering machine than a true defender of gun rights. That tends to be true of any large rights organization. Once you have profession staff, perpetuating you own job becomes important, and scary opponents are a great way to boost fund raising. Now, NAACP and many other organizations fall into this category. Without threats, real or imagined, their ability to raise money declines.
FWIW, I'm still an NRA life member.
BTW, anyone here read Ricochet by Feldmen?
Guns should be much less regulated. We got along fine for decades peior to 1968 without licenses FFLs. However, the current laws are pretty well understood in the gun owning community. If you want to protest by not obeying them, that's fine. But you should accept the fact that you may have to pay for that violation. That's a basic tenet of civil disobedience.
Senator Craig is not doing this to cover for his toe tapping. Anyone who thinks what he did should be against the law is NUTS. It is just another example of a stupid law. I mean who cares and whom did he harm. Craig has ALWAYS been strong in the protection of the 2nd amendment. People and their bias and the power of the MSM in brainwashing amaze me. I mean here is the pro-homosexual MSM rooting aganist a guy for tapping his toes in a non disruptive manner for a coded message for hookin up. So WHAT. The hypocrits here and in the MSM are amazing. And I am no supporter of gay marriage but I could care less what people do in private. Had he had sex in a public bathroom I would feel differently. But toe tappping a code. Good Grief. How about freedom of speech. I guess courting in a public bathroom is a no-no (yes it is gross) but what if he did this in a bar. What are we going to do with co-ed bathrooms??? If a heterosexual woman taps a foot code to pick up the guy in the next booth??????????????? 
WSM MAGNUM
Member
I think it was a week ago or two when I wrote my Senators to block the vote for Sullivan. Knowing my Senators are anti-gun, they e-mailed me back saying that they respect my concerns and blah, blah, blah. I can bet on it that they voted for putting him in. 
samtechlan
Member
I could care less about what Craig does in his private life and I must admit that he has been pretty good on the 2nd A. My problem with him has been on immigration where he is an open border/help big bussiness guy.
________________________________________________________________
www.teaparty07.com
www.ronpaul2008.com
________________________________________________________________
www.teaparty07.com
www.ronpaul2008.com
Craig has been a stalwart supporter of gun rights, but he is a politician first and knows when to play the card.
And I agree what goes on in private is a person's own business. Unless of course they make a big issue of their moral rectitude and act in the opposite way - remember Gary Hart?
And if Sullivan really is anti-gun, it says a lot about Bush appointing him as acting directory and nominating him for the regular post.
Something to think about.
And I agree what goes on in private is a person's own business. Unless of course they make a big issue of their moral rectitude and act in the opposite way - remember Gary Hart?
And if Sullivan really is anti-gun, it says a lot about Bush appointing him as acting directory and nominating him for the regular post.
Something to think about.
Feldman speaks.
Here's a commentary by Richard Feldman, former lobbyist for the NRA and author of Ricochet.
I'm curious to read his book, but now I'm thinking that maybe I should be sending my money to GOA.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/12/14/AR2007121401328.html
Here's a commentary by Richard Feldman, former lobbyist for the NRA and author of Ricochet.
I'm curious to read his book, but now I'm thinking that maybe I should be sending my money to GOA.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/12/14/AR2007121401328.html
Bartholomew Roberts
Member
The Feldman article is already being discussed here:
http://www.thehighroad.org/showthread.php?t=323797
Why? Isn't Feldman's complaint that he came up with a "reasonable compromise" with the gun control crowd and the NRA attacked him for it (because he alleges they wanted to keep that issue alive to raise funds)? It seems to me that GOA would have done the same thing the NRA did here and if Feldman had worked for GOA, he likely would have made the same allegations against them.
I mean it is hard to win as the NRA here. If you compromise, you're a sellout and not as hardcore as GOA. If you don't compromise it is because you want the problem to continue so you can raise more money.
http://www.thehighroad.org/showthread.php?t=323797
Why? Isn't Feldman's complaint that he came up with a "reasonable compromise" with the gun control crowd and the NRA attacked him for it (because he alleges they wanted to keep that issue alive to raise funds)? It seems to me that GOA would have done the same thing the NRA did here and if Feldman had worked for GOA, he likely would have made the same allegations against them.
I mean it is hard to win as the NRA here. If you compromise, you're a sellout and not as hardcore as GOA. If you don't compromise it is because you want the problem to continue so you can raise more money.
Bartholomew Roberts
Member
To do away with the agency, yes. To do away with its functions, no. See the links GunTech posted earlier.
The tobacco and alcohol functions are much diminished. When ATF moved from Treasury to DHS, the Tax and Trade bureau was split off, moving ATF's tax collection functions (except guns) to another agency.
ATF's primary functions apart from guns are now arson investigation and explosives regulation.
ATF's primary functions apart from guns are now arson investigation and explosives regulation.
Sage of Seattle
Member
- Joined
- May 24, 2006
- Messages
- 773
Respectfully, I couldn't care less about the people who have it coming. I care about those who get it who don't deserve it.
I suppose it's always a good thing to question the motivations of any government representative; in this case, however, I kinda have to wonder if those horse's back teeth are all shiny enough for y'all (this isn't aimed specifically at you GunTech).
- Status