ATF Director Resigns
- Thread starter Rumpled
- Start date
- Status
rock jock
Member
I have no problem with the ATF's LE powers. I just don't think they are very effective as an agency. I would rather see them rolled into another agency. Of course, I haven't heard very good things about the FBI either.
The ATF actually does a pretty good job on the tax collection side of things - mostly the A and T part of the bureau.
The problem with the agency is the F part. Congress needs to deal with that part of the agency.
Why is it we let the politicians escape any responsibility for the monsters they have spawned?
DMF said:
Yes, DMF, I agree. The fed gov't should not have an active role in prosecuting someone who kills or attempts to kill a federal official, unless that someone crosses state lines to avoid prosecution.
Federal crimes should be inter-state crimes beyond the ability of a state to address, or they should relate to territorial borders.
Every other little thing added by a liberal Congress since the days of the Civil Rights Movement should be stripped back out; much like the SCOTUS is trying to do.
If it ain't interstate commerce, it ain't federal.
(eft)
Byron Quick
Moderator In Memoriam
As a former furniture retail store owner, I must give the ATF credit for doing one hell of a job of supporting this great nation's economy. Our very high end furniture manufacturers are behind them all the way!
But they've got people who believe that inanimate objects that have never been bought or sold, will never be bought and sold, have never crossed a state line, and will never cross a state line are under federal jurisdiction due to interstate commerce. Didn't the federal government claim jurisdiciton over an animal found only in one state and with no know example of a specimen ever being bough or sold within or without the state due to interstate commerce. Maybe they maintain the frog had the potential to engage in interstate commerce and therefore was a federal matter.
"We're the only ones professional enough to handle this frog."
But they've got people who believe that inanimate objects that have never been bought or sold, will never be bought and sold, have never crossed a state line, and will never cross a state line are under federal jurisdiction due to interstate commerce. Didn't the federal government claim jurisdiciton over an animal found only in one state and with no know example of a specimen ever being bough or sold within or without the state due to interstate commerce. Maybe they maintain the frog had the potential to engage in interstate commerce and therefore was a federal matter.
"We're the only ones professional enough to handle this frog."
Lupinus
Member
because for the most part we are good little subjects
DNF posted:
I'm guessing you're probably real tight with the ATF agent pictured below? I did a search of the ATF site for "Jeremiah Ransom", who is the UGA student getting acquainted with ATF's knee, while handcuffed, in the photo. Darned, if the ATF site had no information! I was thinking the agent would have been given at least a special commendation for this performance in "the campus ninja" case.
Perhaps you could persuade the agent to post on this forum, reveal his identity, etc., and give us the real inside scoop on this episode. Thanks in advance!
Link: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/12303788/
I'm guessing you're probably real tight with the ATF agent pictured below? I did a search of the ATF site for "Jeremiah Ransom", who is the UGA student getting acquainted with ATF's knee, while handcuffed, in the photo. Darned, if the ATF site had no information! I was thinking the agent would have been given at least a special commendation for this performance in "the campus ninja" case.
Perhaps you could persuade the agent to post on this forum, reveal his identity, etc., and give us the real inside scoop on this episode. Thanks in advance!
Link: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/12303788/
Justin
Moderator Emeritus
Tell that to Angel Raich or Ronald Stewart.
The interstate commerce clause, as I believe it was intended, was supposed to reduce smuggling by guaranteeing that the destination state couldn't ban or impose large differential taxes/regulations on a particular product.
See, for instance, the recent issue with wine in Granholm vs Heald. Bans on direct-to-buyer interstate shipment were, in general, invalidated. That is the purpose of the interstate commerce clause; it's not meant to allow the federal government to heavily regulate or ban what goes between states, but instead to keep states from discriminating against externally-produced products.
Without a constitutional amendment, the federal government doesn't have the power to decide what items are good and bad, so it has no basis for prohibiting or regulating certain items shipped between states.
I also don't think the federal government should be involved if a state bans an item and people continue to smuggle in contraband. The state law is valid as long as it's a legitimate exercise of the police power (for instance, banning nuclear weapons) and as long as the ban doesn't discriminate based on in-state-produced items vs out-of-state-produced items; however, enforcing the law is the state's problem. I'm not paying federal taxes so that Oklahoma can decide to ban cell phones and use my taxdollars to pay federal agents to enforce that Oklahoma law.
publius
Member
DMF said:
You mean like 922(q), the Gun Free School Zones Act? In 1995, the Court found in Lopez that being near a school with a gun isn't interstate commerce. In 1996, Congress re-passed the same law, but with some new language saying they had found that being near a school with a gun is an urgent national concern affecting interstate commerce. Ten years later, that law stands.
Who corrected whom, again? And what ever happened to Madison's view of the commerce clause?
Hyunchback
Member
ilbob wrote:
You left out the other side of the equation.
If the policing agency actually does decrease violent crime then their own budget shrinks. If there is less violent crime then why pay more for the agency fighting violent crime?
It is much more 'profitable' to a policing agency to NOT fight what is percieved as the greatest threat and manufacture statistics that show you did something in order to get more money in your budget next year.
The goal of any appointee or career civil servant is always to increase their own budget. That way sixty-five thousand dollar conference tables seem like a small expense.
If the FBI had actually caught the 9/11/01 hijackers BEFORE they attacked then how could they demand more money in their budget? The public wouldn't be terrified and would be looking to do something counter-productive, like paying off the deficit. (Counter-productive to jerks who want nice offices from which to issue press releases.)
The greater the percieved danger to the citizen on the street the more money that policing agencies get to play with. With more money then choosing soap dishes IS the important business. After all, if you don't spend the money you can't justify asking for even more. If you spend it in ways that actually reduce the threat then you also don't get more money.
Actually doing what you are supposed to do and doing it efficiently is not the goal of such agencies.
It's not just the BATF, it's the CIA and the FBI. It's the IRS and Social Security. It's the Pentagon and it's FEMA.
Can you imagine the budget of the Food & Drug Administration if there weren't any unsafe products getting through the system? They wouldn't even be able to afford "fact finding" meetings in Las Vegas. They'd have to settle for Atlantic City!
Can you imagine being the parent of a child who won't clean his room, take out the trash and feed the pets yet demands a larger allowance? Now, start being the 'parent' to our own governments. They fail to protect you from terrorists, won't help you in a natural disaster and the medicine you just took is going to kill you, but they want to raise your taxes so they can do all those things.
When are we going to start treating beuracracies like the greedy little brats they behave like? The BATF needs a spanking, not a new room to play in.
You left out the other side of the equation.
If the policing agency actually does decrease violent crime then their own budget shrinks. If there is less violent crime then why pay more for the agency fighting violent crime?
It is much more 'profitable' to a policing agency to NOT fight what is percieved as the greatest threat and manufacture statistics that show you did something in order to get more money in your budget next year.
The goal of any appointee or career civil servant is always to increase their own budget. That way sixty-five thousand dollar conference tables seem like a small expense.
If the FBI had actually caught the 9/11/01 hijackers BEFORE they attacked then how could they demand more money in their budget? The public wouldn't be terrified and would be looking to do something counter-productive, like paying off the deficit. (Counter-productive to jerks who want nice offices from which to issue press releases.)
The greater the percieved danger to the citizen on the street the more money that policing agencies get to play with. With more money then choosing soap dishes IS the important business. After all, if you don't spend the money you can't justify asking for even more. If you spend it in ways that actually reduce the threat then you also don't get more money.
Actually doing what you are supposed to do and doing it efficiently is not the goal of such agencies.
It's not just the BATF, it's the CIA and the FBI. It's the IRS and Social Security. It's the Pentagon and it's FEMA.
Can you imagine the budget of the Food & Drug Administration if there weren't any unsafe products getting through the system? They wouldn't even be able to afford "fact finding" meetings in Las Vegas. They'd have to settle for Atlantic City!
Can you imagine being the parent of a child who won't clean his room, take out the trash and feed the pets yet demands a larger allowance? Now, start being the 'parent' to our own governments. They fail to protect you from terrorists, won't help you in a natural disaster and the medicine you just took is going to kill you, but they want to raise your taxes so they can do all those things.
When are we going to start treating beuracracies like the greedy little brats they behave like? The BATF needs a spanking, not a new room to play in.
Bubbles
Member
Yes, he is.
Fortunately the President has also been given the names Bardwell and Jeffries as potential candidates for the position.
Also, look for more resignations in the next few weeks, if not days.
fourays2
Member
yes he has, but since he's on record as being in support of an AWB and closing the "gun show loophole" you can rest assured those names are already in the round file.
Steve 48
Member
I think the ATF has a history of not being able to define their mission. Steve Higgins, who was ATF director during Waco resigned but is from my home town and I know the guy. He is not stupid ,but was caught up in a goverment mess during the Clinton years. The ATF is one agency that needs to stick to its mission(and define what it is) and leave the rest to law enforcement. Steve 48
carebear
Member
Interestingly, they have become the lead agency on motorcycle gangs it seems.
Not sure why, since the major charges levied seem to be RICO, drugs and theft (of bikes and cars). I don't think we can truly honestly say they commit gun trafficking to any greater extent than any other gangs.
They certainly aren't being convicted on tobacco, alcohol or explosives charges.
It's almost like the other true federal LEO's gave them "bikers" to have a reason to exist.
Not sure why, since the major charges levied seem to be RICO, drugs and theft (of bikes and cars). I don't think we can truly honestly say they commit gun trafficking to any greater extent than any other gangs.
They certainly aren't being convicted on tobacco, alcohol or explosives charges.
It's almost like the other true federal LEO's gave them "bikers" to have a reason to exist.
carebear
Member
No, their original mission, under Treasury, their sole original reason for being, was TAX enforcement. Which required no "law enforcement" powers whatsoever.
Catch a tax stamp evader (tobacco, then alcohol, then firearms) and anticipate violence? Call the actual cops with originally granted (not after the fact in the '70's) arrest powers in to make the physical arrest as necessary.
Tax evasion is not a violent crime and does not require armed agents to enforce. Any violent crimes committed in the course of tax evasion (murder, assault, robbery etc.) are illegal under existing state laws and can be dealt with by state law enforcement. No Federal LEO powers required.
Much like IRS agents, they should never have been armed, there were previously armed agencies that could do the takedown with perfect Constitutional legality. Arming tax agents was a needless and wasteful duplication of duties.
Waste of tax dollars ironically.
Catch a tax stamp evader (tobacco, then alcohol, then firearms) and anticipate violence? Call the actual cops with originally granted (not after the fact in the '70's) arrest powers in to make the physical arrest as necessary.
Tax evasion is not a violent crime and does not require armed agents to enforce. Any violent crimes committed in the course of tax evasion (murder, assault, robbery etc.) are illegal under existing state laws and can be dealt with by state law enforcement. No Federal LEO powers required.
Much like IRS agents, they should never have been armed, there were previously armed agencies that could do the takedown with perfect Constitutional legality. Arming tax agents was a needless and wasteful duplication of duties.
Waste of tax dollars ironically.
Has he not passed on last year, may he rest in peace, I would have nominated Neal Knox as a replacement. Now why would comrade GW not possibly want a conservative running that outfit if misfits?
----------------------------------------------
http://ussliberty.org
http://ssunitedstates.org
----------------------------------------------
http://ussliberty.org
http://ssunitedstates.org
publius
Member
DMF said:
DMF said:
DMF said:
DMF said:
DMF said:
DMF said:
You seem to have a lot to say about interstate commerce, so what do you say about 922(q)?
The 5th Circuit said that "in light of what it characterized as insufficient congressional findings and legislative history, §922(q) is invalid as beyond Congress' power under the Commerce Clause." In the Lopez case, the Supreme Court affirmed that view.
Congress corrected the Court by re-passing the law the Court had invalidated, but including new language:
That law has been on the books for ten years now, and in that time, the Raich and Stewart cases came along. Here is what Justice O'Connor, joined by Thomas and Rhenquist, said about Lopez in her Raich dissent:
So, have you got any comments at all on 922(q), Lopez, and Raich/Stewart?
Sure do, and you've heard it before, but choose to ignore it:
Laws are passed by the legislature, in accordance with Article I of the Constitution, were signed into law and are enforced by the Executive, in accordance with Article II of the Constitution, and have been contested and ruled on by the judiciary, in accordance with Article III of the Constitution. If the judiciary strikes down a law, or the executive vetoes the law, Congress can try again with new language, or attempt to override the veto, or pass the law when a new president is in office.
For an example you can look at the challenges to the NFA and the GCA changes to the NFA to correct what the Supreme Court saw as Constitutional defects in the law:
Haynes v. US, 390US85 (1968) - challenged the NFA on 5th Amendment grounds, and as a result of the case, part of the GCA corrected the Constitutional flaw in the NFA.
US v. Freed, 401US601 (1971) - again challenged the NFA on 5th Amendment grounds, and was a test of the changes to the NFA brought about by the GCA.
Now, I know there will be cries of, "those laws are unconstitutional," "the sniveling congress critters are wrong," "the president is weak and wrong," and "the courts have twisted the Constitution and their decisions are wrong." The problem with all of those cries is our Constitution created a REPRESENTATIVE REPUBLIC, not a direct democracy. Therefore by design the individual citizens do not have a direct say in those matters. Rather the people we elect as our representatives, and those appointed by the people we elect, all as specified in the Constitution, have a direct say in what is or is not Constitutional. We elected those congressman, and presidents, who in turn appointed and confirmed the judges.
If you don't like the people representing you, be sure to vote. If changing who is making the decisions, by voting, isn't good enough for you, and you want changes in the system itself, I refer you to Article V, of the Constitution. If you want a direct say instead of that of a representative, run for office.
Now if you profess to know, and support, the Constitution, then all this should be clear to you already.
Last edited:
Tax LAWS are laws and therefore enforcing tax LAWS, is law enforcement. Those who enforce the laws, whether tax laws, traffic laws, or any other label you want to put on a law are in fact law enforcment.
However, when ATF was created in 1972 it was clear they were created as a law enforcement agency, and given statutory authority by Congress to enforce federal law, including but not limited to statutes found in both Title 26 and Title 18 of the US Code.
Further, if you want to look at the history of ATF before 1972 they trace their history back to the Volstead Act. It wasn't about taxation at all, there was a Constitutional ban on alcohol, and they enforced the laws which criminalized the production and sale of alcohol.
Well, IRS-CID agents, including agents which later became ATF had statutory authority to enforce the law long before 1970. Regardless, federal law enforcement exists to enforce federal laws. It may sound good to you to say call the local cops, but they might not want to enforce federal law. Separate sovereigns, comes into play here.
Many so called non-violent crimes are committed by violent people, or by previously non-violent people who become violent when law enforcement arrives to actually enforce the law. Many cops have been attacked, injured, and/or killed by people being arrested for "non-violent" crimes.
Again, federal laws exist to protect federal interests, and Congress has decided that when it's law enforcement agents are enforcing federal laws, including tax laws, they need to be armed to affect their duties. See my previous posts on federal laws protecting federal interests, and the issue of a representative government in my post immediately preceeding this one.
Henry Bowman
Senior Member
An excellent point. If the feds had had to operate under the authority of the local CLEO, then Ruby Ridge and Waco would have turned out differently. If local LE is corrupt, then move up to the state level. Only if the whole state system is corrupt and violating Constutional rights (as we saw in some school desegregation cases) do the feds have a proper place in overstepping local LE.
DMF, your reasoning seems circular to me. "There is a federal law, therefore it is a federal issue. Because it is a federal issue, we can pass more federal laws making more things federal issues."
publius
Member
Thanks for the Civics Primer
Maybe I should be more clear in my question: Do you believe that the current Gun Free School Zones Act, 922(q), is a constitutional exercise of Congress' authority, or not? Why or why not?
And it was, but it was also unresponsive to my question. I asked about 922(q), Lopez, and Raich/Stewart, and I see nothing in your response about any of those specific issues.DMF said:
Maybe I should be more clear in my question: Do you believe that the current Gun Free School Zones Act, 922(q), is a constitutional exercise of Congress' authority, or not? Why or why not?
- Status