ATF Director Resigns

[telomerase]

Maybe he would be the first government agency head to shut down his own agency.

Albert Gallatin paid off the national debt, reducing the importance of his department. Ed Noble did essentially nothing as head of the Synfuels boondoggle, thus reducing its damage considerably.

There are occasional bureaucratic heroes.

 

[beerslurpy]

As of last year I beleive, ATF director is now confirmed by congress.

 

[Robert Hairless]

Remember, Bush is on record as being in favor of more gun control. Wanted the "assault weapon" ban made permanent. Minimum age for gun ownership raised. The non-existant "gun show loophole" closed.

:banghead:

 

[Buck Nekkid]

John Ross for BATFE Director

+1 on John Ross!! I just re-read "Unintended Consequences" and once again realized how salient his thoughts are.

 

[tyme]

DMF...

1st link: Felon-in-possession is a paper crime, IMO. The other charges are legit, but should be State crimes. No federal involvement needed.

2nd link: MS-13 needs to be dealt with by Customs, INS, and the FBI, not the ATF.
3rd link: Gun store robbery should be a State matter.
4th link: Fast food robbery should be a State matter.

5th link: a bunch of undercover drug and gun buys doesn't impress me. Some of those guns probably would have ended up in the hands of criminals, but it's not like there's a lack of other guns on the black market. The worst crime here is possession of stolen property. I'm also not impressed with the misspelling of Percocet (as Percocete), or the listing of both Percocet and Oxycontin, since one is just the HCl salt of the other.

6th link: Planning of home invasions by gangs in San Diego is a matter for San Diego police and perhaps INS, not the ATF.

7th link: Okay, this is a very serious crime, but what does murder for hire have to do with the feds, and the ATF specifically? A crime in Baltimore is a Maryland matter.

8th link: I was buying into this being a serious crime until the part where the person they were firebombing had reported drug crimes. If you do something dumb like that and can't provide for your own security, you don't deserve to get your house burned down, but it's hardly surprising. Drugs shouldn't be a federal matter, so any witness tampering in this case should have involved a State witness, which would be a State matter even if it involved arson.

9th link (Hezbollah reference): This REALLY annoys me. I hate cigarettes as much as the people who passed New York's $3/box tax, but we must always be respectful of the Constitution, and wary of unintended consequences. If New York wouldn't levy an extreme tax on cigarettes for socialist purposes, there would not be huge arbitrage potential, and terrorists wouldn't be able to make several million dollars by smuggling a truckload of cigarettes up from Virginia.

10th link: Exporting ATF agents to deal with roadside bombs in Iraq is just as annoying as when we export FBI agents to investigate crimes in other countries. Let the Iraqi police or the U.S. military investigate roadside bombs. It's not like the military can't deal with explosives.

11th link: FINALLY, here's a case of an interstate series of crimes... by the ELF and ALF no less. Valid crimes? Check. Federal jurisdiction? Check.

12th link: Another ELF arson, but less persuasive as a federal crime. One instance of arson does not need a joint investigation involving the local FD, the local Sheriff, the FBI, and the BATFE. Evidently the feds don't understand ELF structure if they claim any ELF action is a federal crime simply because previous ELF actions have occurred in other states.

13th link: More "ecoterrorism" nonsense. What the ALF/ELF do is clearly criminal, but hardly terrorism. As in many ELF/ALF cases, the feds have jurisdiction... in this case, because the target was a federal agency. On the other hand, the BLM is a pretty lousy federal agency, just a few rungs up from the ATF itself. Still, the ELF violated its mandate. They claim to target entities with a view to force them out of business. Clearly, you can't force a federal agency out of business.


The BATF's original charter was unconstitutional, but it has since branched out to investigate real crimes, even though most of the specific crimes it investigates shouldn't be federal crimes. I'm willing to take a more fine-grained view of the Bureau, and condemn only those parts involved with firearms laws. However, the legitimate parts (which I think are a minority), while not inherently evil, cannot remain. They need to be merged with the FBI.

As long as the BATFE exists, the entire Bureau, no matter what good it does, will be tainted. The Bureau was founded to levy unconstitutional taxes, and then to enforce unconstitutional laws,. As long as it exists, its name will remind us of that shameful legacy.

 

[stevelyn]

ATF Director Resigns.

Too bad he isn't taking the rest of the useless, corrupt bastids with him.

 

[DMF]

Felon-in-possession is a paper crime . . .

Felon and a gun, no paper involved. Congress has outlawed the possession of firearms or ammunition that have traveled in interstate commerce by those convicted of crimes punishable by more than a year in prison.

2nd link: MS-13 needs to be dealt with by Customs, INS, and the FBI, not the ATF.

Sorry, but Congress decided that many crimes involving gangs, guns, and violence are crimes ATF should enforce. Besides if it’s got a fed nexus, which you concede by saying the FBI, and ICE (Customs and INS no longer exist) then it shouldn’t matter which federal LE agency handles the investigation as long as the criminals are punished.

3rd link: Gun store robbery should be a State matter.

Gun store = FEDERAL Firearms License. Congress has outlawed the theft of firearms from FFLs, 18USC922(u), and has tasked ATF with enforcing that law.

4th link: Fast food robbery should be a State matter.

Use of threats or violence to rob a business in or affecting interstate commerce is a federal crime (18USC1951 aka the Hobbs Act), again Congress made that decision, and tasked ATF with enforcing that law.

5th link: a bunch of undercover drug and gun buys doesn't impress me.

Sorry, you're not impressed, but that case illustrates the ATF enforcing laws that affect violent crime; 18USC922(g), 18USC924(c).

6th link: Planning of home invasions by gangs in San Diego is a matter for San Diego police and perhaps INS, not the ATF.

Once again, ATF got involved because these guys were using firearms that have traveled in interstate commerce to commit a crime of violence, which violates 18USC924(c).

7th link: Okay, this is a very serious crime, but what does murder for hire have to do with the feds, and the ATF specifically?

Anyone who uses an instrument of interstate commerce in a murder for hire, or crosses state as part of a murder for hire violates federal law, 18USC1958. Once again Congress has passed a specific statute for a crime that affects or uses interstate commerce.

8th link: I was buying into this being a serious crime until the part where the person they were firebombing had reported drug crimes.

So if your neighbors are suspected crack dealers you think it’s OK for someone to burn down their house? Would still think it was OK if the fire spread to your property?

Drugs shouldn't be a federal matter . . .

Well drugs, both legal and illegal, travel in or affect interstate commerce. Hence we have Title 21 of the US Code which addresses federal interests in drug crimes.

9th link (Hezbollah reference): This REALLY annoys me.

Sorry, you’re annoyed the ATF caught people committing crimes to funnel money to Hezbollah. I had no idea you were such a fan of those terrorists.

. . . New York's $3/box tax . . . If New York wouldn't levy an extreme tax on cigarettes . . .

Well the issue of whether NY levies a tax on cigarettes or not is an issue for NY and it’s citizens to address. However, the use of interstate commerce, moving cigarettes from NC to NY to violate the law in NY, is a federal matter. One neatly addressed by Congress in 18USC1952 and 18USC2341, 18USC2342, and 18USC2345.

10th link: Exporting ATF agents to deal with roadside bombs in Iraq is just as annoying as when we export FBI agents to investigate crimes in other countries. Let the Iraqi police or the U.S. military investigate roadside bombs. It's not like the military can't deal with explosives.

Some of the leading experts in IEDs are ATF Special Agents, and Explosive Enforcement Officers. They are there to save lives, and combat terrorism, yet this annoys you? It’s ridiculous that you would let your misguided hatred of the ATF lead you to advocate risking the lives of US soldiers and Iraqi citizens by wanting those ATF experts to stay out of Iraq, rather than have them there saving lives.

11th link: FINALLY, here's a case of an interstate series of crimes... by the ELF and ALF no less. Valid crimes? Check. Federal jurisdiction? Check.

Yep, just like all the others I linked.

12th link: Another ELF arson, but less persuasive as a federal crime. One instance of arson does not need a joint investigation involving the local FD, the local Sheriff, the FBI, and the BATFE. Evidently the feds don't understand ELF structure if they claim any ELF action is a federal crime simply because previous ELF actions have occurred in other states.

I guess you missed the fact that the locals ASKED the ATF to help, because the ATF has Certified Fire Investigators who are trained to work these crime scenes, and have extensive experience in working ALF/ELF arsons in the past. It’s an example of the feds helping local LE, and fighting terrorism.

13th link: More "ecoterrorism" nonsense . . .

They are terrorists. Just because they haven’t killed people YET, doesn’t mean their crimes aren’t acts of terror. They put lives at risk, and do billions of dollars in damage through acts of terrorism.

Hate the ATF all you want, but those links proved the claims the ATF did not fight violent crime and/or terrorism are lies.

Before you claim the cited statutes do not address a clear federal interest in those crimes, I suggest you actually read those statutes, and the relevant case law. Only where a clear federal interest is present are those laws applicable.

 

[Art Eatman]

DMF, I don't have a dog in this hunt, but as an example of justification of what Tyme is philosophising:

Until after JFK was shot, it was not a federal crime to assassinate a President. We managed to survive without federalization from Lincoln on through the attempts on FDR, etc.

Does it really need federalization? After all, murder is against the law in every state, territory, possession, whatever.

For that matter, the same applies for the federalization about messing with a federal employee. State laws cover doing Bad Things to whomever.

Most of this stuff only holds if one believes that federal folks are somehow more important than us Great Unwashed. That view doesn't sit well with us Old Farts who remember when folks were a lot closer to being equal.

Art

 

[Don Gwinn]

Any thoughts on who the actual front-runners are? I confess I don't know enough about what's going on inside the beltway to hazard a guess.

 

[DMF]

Until after JFK was shot, it was not a federal crime to assassinate a President. We managed to survive without federalization from Lincoln on through the attempts on FDR, etc.

Does it really need federalization? After all, murder is against the law in every state, territory, possession, whatever.

So you are saying the federal government has no interest in prosecuting someone who kills or attempts to kill a federal official? It matters not whether it's a crime in a state or territory, under the concept of separate sovereigns the federal government protects the interests of the federal government, to include prosecuting those who commit crimes against elected or appointed federal officials.

For that matter, the same applies for the federalization about messing with a federal employee. State laws cover doing Bad Things to whomever.

The same justification from above applies to all federal employees.[/QUOTE]Most of this stuff only holds if one believes that federal folks are somehow more important than us Great Unwashed.[/QUOTE]This is not true at all. The laws against commiting crimes of violence against a federal employee only apply if it can proven the crime was committed because of the persons position within the government. Meaning if you are angry with your neighbor over a property dispute, and the neighbor happens to an IRS employee, if you assault your neighbor you can't be prosecuted by the feds, because your crime was directed at him because of his status as an employee of the federal government. However, if you assault him because you are angry at the fact you must pay income tax, and are angry that you live next door to someone who works for the department of the government that collects those taxes, then it can be prosecuted by the feds.

The federal government has an interest in punishing those who interfere with the functioning of government functions through violence and intimidation. The threat of punishment hopefully deters some from committing those acts of violence in the first place.

Further, if a state government refuses to prosecute someone for crime which affects the interest of the federal government, the federal government must act to protect it's own interests. Again, it is the concept of separate sovereigns.

It has nothing to do with the Congress believing federal employees are somehow better than anyone else, it is merely an attempt by Congress to protect employees and representatives who are targeted because of their OFFICIAL DUTIES.

 

[publius]

Truscott's remarks were not about tax collectors, bungling or otherwise, they were about a LAW ENFORCEMENT AGENCY, given statutory authority by Congress (18USC3051) to enforce various federal laws which relate to violent crime.

Uh huh. And how did that agency originate? To collect a $200 "tax" on guns which didn't cost that much at the time.

Given statutory authority, huh? As in...

Congress has outlawed the possession of firearms or ammunition that have traveled in interstate commerce by those convicted of crimes punishable by more than a year in prison.

Sounds almost Constitutional, if you buy New Deal "living document" type interpretations. Of course, people familiar with the constitutional issues know that the guns don't really have to travel in commerce at all. A homegrown machine gun for personal consumption, like a homegrown cannabis plant for personal consumption, is close enough to "commerce" for government work.

 

[Byron Quick]

DMF,

The problem is not as you assert. The problem, rather, is the ballooning of federal police powers without adequate authority granted by the Constitution.

Tell you what, don't take my word for this. Or tyme's. Or Art's. Go talk with some state LEO's who have 'worked' with federal agencies. Find out how the state LEO's are treated. Find out how the feds treat them.

I've know highly placed agents in the GBI for most of my life. They disagree about many issues. They don't disagree about the feds. One question that stuck me after listening to their tales of woe was this:"If the feds treat their state compatriots in such a shoddy fashion, what does that imply about how they will treat the private citizen?"

Even leaving aside the many questionable activities of the agencies in question, there is little grounding in the Constitution for federal police powers. There is no grounding for anything like the behemoth that federal police agencies have grown into. So what if Congress passed this law or that law directing the agencies to do this or that. Congress has no record of passing unconstitutional laws?

 

[hammer4nc]

I always enjoy (self-described federal agent) DMF's posts. They do a great deal to illustrate the general attitude of fedgov toward its citizens, esp. when said citizens disagree. Keep posting!

In this case, a thread about ATF director Truscott, DMF posts not a few but a dozen links attempting to aggrandize ATF's activities. What is your point? What do these have to do with Truscott, his forced retirement, his ridiculous obsession with the opulent details of ATF's new headquarters? Perhaps, if you posted 100, instead of just a dozen irrelevent links, your argument would be that much stronger? Incidently, the ATF and DOJ websites contain no information pertinent to the thread, much less any topic that smacks critical of these agencies. Propaganda.

Once again, DNF, keep posting. More people need to understand the attitude of our government toward its citizens.

 

[Thin Black Line]

cheap conference furniture needs to get replaced every 2 years

the good stuff lasts at least 100 and can be refinished

Good point. I don't want my $ being wasted on stuff that breaks.

However, using the Consumer Price Index calculator (which only goes
back to 1913), that table would have cost approximately $3,000 back
then. The hardwood long tables made back then (and older) have lasted
longer than 100 years, but I think they would have been less than $3k.

Antique dealers and furniture historians: input please....

 

[StopTheGrays]

If I were the Pres. I would make a recess appointment of someone like Bob Barr (as an example) or some other gun friendly politician whether a Dem or Rep.

 

[Bubbles]

I'll nominate Len Savage to replace Truscott. He's certainly well qualified to clean up the mess that is the agency today.

I'd also bet that Truscott's resignation had nothing to do with cost overruns.

We can only hope that Sterling Nixon's next on the chopping block...

 

[ilbob]

I think Bush has been burned now several times by appointing secret service people to head other agencies (ATF and air marshals come to mind). Hopefully he has learned his lesson.

I would like to see a judge or maybe a senator/congressman appointed. The agency has a long history of not knowing what its mission really is (at least since prohibition was repealed), so not surprisingly, it has floundered.

Congress can help by changing the laws on FFLs to make abbreviations on forms not a criminal offense anymore. Maybe make these kind of nonsense issues a $5 fine or something so the ATF boys can go do something more useful.

In the end, it would probably be best if the agency's LE side was disbanded and the LE aspects of the agency assigned to the FBI or the US marshals service, or other agencies.

They are reputed to have some very good technical expertise in the areas of arson and explosives that might best be used at the FBI labs.

The tax collecting and paper shuffling side can stay pretty much as is.

There are just way too many federal LE agencies. It is very hard to get them all under the proper thumb when there are so many of them.

 

[Henry Bowman]

In the end, it would probably be best if the agency's LE side was disbanded and the LE aspects of the agency assigned to the FBI or the US marshals service, or other agencies.

They are reputed to have some very good technical expertise in the areas of arson and explosives that might best be used at the FBI labs.

Exactly. I understand why bureacrats strive for self-presevation. But why is this blatantly obvious point so difficult for the admin to see during this post 9/11 era of "consolidation." :banghead:

 

[DMF]

The problem, rather, is the ballooning of federal police powers without adequate authority granted by the Constitution.

This argument of yours is extremely tired. The Constitution gives Congress the authority to pass laws, and Congress has created a mechanism to enforce those laws. This has been tested in the courts, and the creation of the first federal law enforcement agencies goes back to the very first Congress. We've had this discussion before.

Tell you what, don't take my word for this. Or tyme's. Or Art's. Go talk with some state LEO's who have 'worked' with federal agencies. Find out how the state LEO's are treated. Find out how the feds treat them.

Talk with them? I work with them on a regular basis, some of very good friends of mine are local cops I've gotten to know on the job. Hell, we've got a local cop who works full time in my office as a Task Force Officer. In my last office we had two state patrol detectives who were assigned to work with us. Those officers fought tooth and nail to get those jobs because they are known to be very good positions. Further I've worked on several joint investigations and task force programs where the local and state agencies worked with various fed agencies. We all got along great. Every once in a while there are individual personality conflicts, but most good agents know that with the help of state and local LE they will have a much harder time doing their jobs. Considering so many fed LEOs come from a background of state and local LE, there is a lot of mutual respect.

I've know highly placed agents in the GBI for most of my life. They disagree about many issues. They don't disagree about the feds. One question that stuck me after listening to their tales of woe was this:"If the feds treat their state compatriots in such a shoddy fashion, what does that imply about how they will treat the private citizen?"

I'm calling BS here. I know three former GBI agents who are now feds themselves. One worked at my last agency, and two work at the ATF. I also know several agents with a couple of different agencies who work in GA, and get along great with current GBI agents. They work cases very well together.

However, I don't expect anyone to take my word on this issue. Go get the book, "Hunting Eric Rudolph," by Charles Stone. Stone is was one of the top agents at GBI, and he had lots of complaints about the "feds" but it was all directed at one agency in particular. However, his comments about the ATF were all favorable. There is even one part of the book where he describes a stituation where the locals are discussing their problems with the other "feds" with the ATF agents. It's clear Stone saw the ATF as an ally during the investigation.

Even leaving aside the many questionable activities of the agencies in question, there is little grounding in the Constitution for federal police powers.

Again, this is patently false. The people who wrote the Constitution were an integral part of creating the first federal law enforcement agencies. Again, this has been tested in the courts, and where Congress has exceeded it's authority under the Constitution the courts corrected those problems. However, when Congress has acted properly under it's authority the courts have supported them.

If you're unclear on this concept I suggest your reread the Constitution, and the system of government established by it.

 

[DMF]

What is your point?

My point was to show that the claim that ATF has done nothing to fight violent crime or terrorism was a blatant lie.

Anyone who is unclear about that can feel free to reread the info in those links.

 

[carebear]

Successfully enforcing Federal laws based almost solely on an incredibly loose reading of the Commerce Clause (yes, yes I know, expansionist judges say it's okay ) but that either address crimes already sufficiently covered under the laws of the various states or create infractions without real damages (other than those previously sufficiently covered under the laws of the several states) does not a successful or useful agency make.

Bad law is bad law. Duplication of other agencies functions to enforce same is just wasteful.

 

[Don Gwinn]

No, no--they didn't actually do nothing.

They should have done nothing because by "doing something about violent crime" they were grossly overstepping their authority.

 

[DMF]

Maybe you should read the statute that covers their authority before making that false claim.

http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/ts_search.pl?title=18&sec=3051

 

[carebear]

The Congress could make a statute naming me a Federal Bikini Inspector. (bikini's being of the type of clothing that commonly go through interstate commerce)

Doesn't make my appointment useful or necessary, just Constitutional and legal. Heck, if there were other pre-existing agencies that already handled most swimwear issues (Federal and local) it would in fact make me redundant and wasteful of resources.

If they really needed my supposed technical bikini expertise, far better to assign me to an existing organization's technical section and let its existing enforcement agents do the field work.




(and when, exactly, did the general law enforcement aspect get added to the original mission and intent? Just because it IS, it doesn't mean it always WAS. Even if it WAS, it doesn't mean it really needs to BE.)

 

[Telperion]

DMF: Once upon a time, not all too long ago, your 18USC-whatevers would have been struck down by the Supreme Court as fast as the man in the black robe could bang his gavel. Might come as a shock to you, but some people still hold to this understanding of our Constitution, and work toward restoring it.