ATF on the prowl

RPCVYemen,

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

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

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

Close enough to the Northeast...

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.

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.

Sounds to me like the spokane, WA office of the BATFE has been watching the old 'Lexx' series, and believing their own headlines.

Foreigners have a bad impression of ATF, for whatever that is worth.

Click to expand...

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.

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.

Click to expand...

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

Click to expand...

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

Click to expand...

“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.”

Click to expand...

"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

Click to expand...

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.”

Click to expand...

"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

Click to expand...

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

Click to expand...

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.

Click to expand...

It's the whole boiled frog thing

. . . requiring a place of business . . .

Click to expand...

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.

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.

Click to expand...

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.

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.

Click to expand...

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.

DMF said:

... all of which CONGRESS, not ATF, requires ...

Click to expand...

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

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.

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.

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.

Click to expand...

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.

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.

Click to expand...

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...

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.

Click to expand...

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.

Click to expand...

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.

Kentuicky said:

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.

Click to expand...

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.

Kentucky said:

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

Click to expand...

"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.

Kentucky said:

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.

Click to expand...

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

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

Click to expand...

Whom should we blame for their institutional racism and OFFICIAL POLICY of LYING UNDER OATH?

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 …"

Click to expand...

Man o man...

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.



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.

Click to expand...

Kentucky said:

They are implementing this change BEFORE the law is even passed.

Click to expand...

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

P.l 109-162

P.l 109-162.

jpk1md said:

P.l 109-162.

Click to expand...

Can you give us a little context?

Mike