In 1972 when Congress created ATF as a separate agency. When ATF was under Treasury their statutory authority was in 26USC7608.. . . when, exactly, did the general law enforcement aspect get added to the original mission and intent?
In 1972 when Congress created ATF as a separate agency. When ATF was under Treasury their statutory authority was in 26USC7608.. . . when, exactly, did the general law enforcement aspect get added to the original mission and intent?
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.
DMF said:So you are saying the federal government has no interest in prosecuting someone who kills or attempts to kill a federal official?
If it ain't interstate commerce, it ain't federal.
because for the most part we are good little subjectsWhy is it we let the politicians escape any responsibility for the monsters they have spawned?
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.
If it ain't interstate commerce, it ain't federal.
Justin said: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.The Angel Raich reference I understand; and by the original federal model, drug laws would be (and should be) a state issue. Though I do see a federal role in stopping smuggling.
DMF said:where Congress has exceeded it's authority under the Constitution the courts corrected those problems.
13 Feb. 1829
Letters 4:14--15 James Madison to Joseph C. Cabell
For a like reason, I made no reference to the "power to regulate commerce among the several States." I always foresaw that difficulties might be started in relation to that power which could not be fully explained without recurring to views of it, which, however just, might give birth to specious though unsound objections. Being in the same terms with the power over foreign commerce, the same extent, if taken literally, would belong to it. Yet it is very certain that it grew out of the abuse of the power by the importing States in taxing the non-importing, and was intended as a negative and preventive provision against injustice among the States themselves, rather than as a power to be used for the positive purposes of the General Government, in which alone, however, the remedial power could be lodged.
This situation is not unique to the BATF. Most police agencies of any size are doing the exact same thing. I have come to believe it is primarily for the following reasons:
It is much easier and safer to go after generally law abiding people and non-violent offenders than it is to go after violent criminals.
Since news agencies rarely do any fact checking any more, they can release glowing press reports about how many guns they got off the street this month. Even if none of those guns ever actually were on the street. Or the violations involved were mostly misspelled or abbreviated words on a form.
Or they can brag about the drug dealers they caught. But not bothering to mention that the vast majority of the drug dealers were non-violent offenders selling small amounts of weed.
I hear Jorge is consulting with Chuckles Schumer on a replacement
Fortunately the President has also been given the names Bardwell and Jeffries as potential candidates for the position.
Well Steve ATF's mission is law enforcement, and always has been. Their statutory authority to enforce federal law is in 18USC3051.. . . leave the rest to law enforcement.
DMF said: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.
DMF said:Use of threats or violence to rob a business in or affecting interstate commerce is a federal crime
DMF said:ATF got involved because these guys were using firearms that have traveled in interstate commerce to commit a crime of violence
DMF said: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
DMF said: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.
DMF said:However, the use of interstate commerce, moving cigarettes from NC to NY to violate the law in NY, is a federal matter.
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:(1) The Congress finds and declares that—
(A) crime, particularly crime involving drugs and guns, is a pervasive, nationwide problem;
(B) crime at the local level is exacerbated by the interstate movement of drugs, guns, and criminal gangs;
(C) firearms and ammunition move easily in interstate commerce and have been found in increasing numbers in and around schools, as documented in numerous hearings in both the Committee on the Judiciary [2] the House of Representatives and the Committee on the Judiciary of the Senate;
(D) in fact, even before the sale of a firearm, the gun, its component parts, ammunition, and the raw materials from which they are made have considerably moved in interstate commerce;
(E) while criminals freely move from State to State, ordinary citizens and foreign visitors may fear to travel to or through certain parts of the country due to concern about violent crime and gun violence, and parents may decline to send their children to school for the same reason;
(F) the occurrence of violent crime in school zones has resulted in a decline in the quality of education in our country;
(G) this decline in the quality of education has an adverse impact on interstate commerce and the foreign commerce of the United States;
(H) States, localities, and school systems find it almost impossible to handle gun-related crime by themselves—even States, localities, and school systems that have made strong efforts to prevent, detect, and punish gun-related crime find their efforts unavailing due in part to the failure or inability of other States or localities to take strong measures; and
(I) the Congress has the power, under the interstate commerce clause and other provisions of the Constitution, to enact measures to ensure the integrity and safety of the Nation’s schools by enactment of this subsection.
If the Court is right, then Lopez stands for nothing more than a drafting guide: Congress should have described the relevant crime as “transfer or possession of a firearm anywhere in the nation”–thus including commercial and noncommercial activity, and clearly encompassing some activity with assuredly substantial effect on interstate commerce. Had it done so, the majority hints, we would have sustained its authority to regulate possession of firearms in school zones.
Sure do, and you've heard it before, but choose to ignore it:So, have you got any comments at all on 922(q), Lopez, and Raich/Stewart?
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.No, their original mission, under Treasury, their sole original reason for being, was TAX enforcement. Which required no "law enforcement" powers whatsoever.
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.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.
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.Tax evasion is not a violent crime and does not require armed agents to enforce.
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.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.
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.It may sound good to you to say call the local cops, but they might not want to enforce federal law.
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: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.