shotgunjoel
Member
Prince Yamato, thanks for pointing out that guns isn't all they do. But seriously, absinthe has been proven in recent years to be no more dangerous or otherwise different than any other alcohol.
Is the ATF ussually considered pro or anti?
- Thread starter shotgunjoel
- Start date
- Status
JP from Phoenix
Member
- Joined
- Jul 30, 2007
- Messages
- 241
I'm sure the ATF keeps a close eye on sites like this
shotgunjoel
Member
Sadly.
Onmilothesameone
member
- Joined
- Apr 10, 2009
- Messages
- 13
BATFE agents are law enforcement agents and believe it or not, human beings too.
I am sure there is a group that is vehemently anti-everything and I am sure there are an equal number of agents that are pro civilian ownership and simply do the job of getting the bad apples.
BATFE is a regulatory enforcement agency and it can be argued both ways successfully to the pro's and con's of such government entities.
I am sure there is a group that is vehemently anti-everything and I am sure there are an equal number of agents that are pro civilian ownership and simply do the job of getting the bad apples.
BATFE is a regulatory enforcement agency and it can be argued both ways successfully to the pro's and con's of such government entities.
BATFE blows with the wind of the administration. When they are ordered to "crack down", they do so. If ordered to "ease up" they do so.
But they are cops, and they do enforce the laws. Some might overlook minor problems, but you can't depend on it, anymore than you can depend on a cop ignoring 60 in a 55 zone.
I have known some BATFE agents who were pro-gun, but the agency weeded them out and today I would say that overall, BATFE is anti-gun, and will not object to doing anything an anti-gun administration orders, constitutional or not.
Jim
But they are cops, and they do enforce the laws. Some might overlook minor problems, but you can't depend on it, anymore than you can depend on a cop ignoring 60 in a 55 zone.
I have known some BATFE agents who were pro-gun, but the agency weeded them out and today I would say that overall, BATFE is anti-gun, and will not object to doing anything an anti-gun administration orders, constitutional or not.
Jim
wyocarp
Member
Tab, what's the problem with going over the arbitrary speed limit? I don't draw the line on speed. I draw the line on carelessness. Applied to guns, what difference does it make to have a barrel that is 1/4" too short?
Prince Yamato
Member
I wonder if the people on the Wine Spectator forums are as paranoid about ATF taking their wine as some of you people are about them taking your guns.
Cannonball888
Member
And lying is part of enforcing?
You should study the Ruby Ridge and Waco incidents and testimonies carefully.
They're jackboot thugs in service to the gov't who are trying to take away your rights. They'll buy a gun off someone and saw the barrel off and say you sold them it that way, or take a pre ban 30 round mag and claim it's post-ban as long as their higher ups tell them someone is unpopular or politically incorrect like Waco. But in a way they're pro; just like the politicians are pro in a way . . . pro gun but so long as they're the only ones who have them.
Prince Yamato
Member
Why must people always cite Ruby Ridge and Waco? I hate when people do this. You realize that the "victims" in both cases were primarily fundamentalist nut jobs? In one case, a cult, in the other a white supremacist. Standing up for those kinds of people does nothing for 2A and makes fence-sitters less sympathetic to us because they think to themselves, "oh see, they defend people like white supremacists... that's why I see all those Nazi daggers and flags at gun shows... gun owners really are a bunch of racists and weirdos."
And for the record, I've looked up both cases. I have little sympathy for the parties involved, save for the innocent children who were abused by the Davidians.
Come up with a better example of why the ATF is so evil besides citing the plight of marginal types.
Really? Because they're reviewing my application for a silencer right now. I'm pretty sure that the ATF and I are not the only entities in this country that own/will own silencers.
And for the record, I've looked up both cases. I have little sympathy for the parties involved, save for the innocent children who were abused by the Davidians.
Come up with a better example of why the ATF is so evil besides citing the plight of marginal types.
Really? Because they're reviewing my application for a silencer right now. I'm pretty sure that the ATF and I are not the only entities in this country that own/will own silencers.
As some others have noted, they're LE, and they follow orders. I'm not going to offer a pro or con opinion because if you look at the confusing maze of federal firearms laws things could be a lot worse for gun owners. I've read through some of them that are so vague and contradictory you'd need a good attorney who specializes in firearms laws just to figure out what they're actually saying.
Institutionally, the ATF seems to be primarily anti-gun.
On an individual level, that may not be the case. Individuals, by definition, are just that. Several friends of mine have had interactions with ATF agents, and most of the interactions have been extremely polite and often friendly.
John
On an individual level, that may not be the case. Individuals, by definition, are just that. Several friends of mine have had interactions with ATF agents, and most of the interactions have been extremely polite and often friendly.
John
rbernie
Contributing Member
I have no sympathy for the ideologies that either espoused. That still doesn't mean that I support the violent revocation of their rights as US citizens.
Like it or not - neither Ruby Ridge nor Waco are shining examples of how things should be done by the F Troop.
This is a bit of a fudge, IMO. Any regulatory agency has reasonably broad latitude in determining HOW to interpret the crappy language given to them from the legislature. Many, many changes in enforced law have been conducted via F Troop policy statement.
A recent example is the policy statement that they issued last year WRT the licensing levels required of a gunsmith in order to do business. See this post for details. In this policy statement, the F Troop essentially declared (among other things) that anyone assembling ARs for resale was a manufacturer of a firearm - not just the company that made the finished receivers. Via this 'policy statement', the F Troop created new restrictions; my AR15 now has TWO manufacturers associated with it and the F Troop collected the manufacturers' license fee from both.
Exactly so. It's not personal - it's their job. If there were no restrictions and no 'issues' - what would they do?
Tommygunn
Member
The fact that the Davidians were a "cult" (which Christians were 2000 years ago) does not mean the fed leo agencies there were justified in their actions or did a good job.
IIRC the Texas Rangers investigated charges of child abuse at the Davidian compound and didn't get anywhere. It is considered by some this was only an excuse the Feds used for their heavy handed tactics.
As for Weaver at Ruby Ridge, while he had associated with neo nazi types, I believe he dissassociated from them prior to the incident. In any case, it is a matter of the record of law the Feds "entrapped" him. The judge at his trial read the ATF a riot act on the matter; Attorney Gerry Spence did little more than use the prosecutions case to prove his client's case.
There are nutcakes around for sure. Neither Weaver or Koresh were pure at heart. It does not follow from the fact that these people were tainted that the law enforcement activities used against them were justified. Horrible mistakes were made at Ruby Ridge that got a dog, a forteen year old boy, and Weaver's wife dead.
While IMHO the Davidians immolated themselves (there were no black choppers firing Hellfire missiles at them as one particularly whacky conspiracy theorized) Janet Reno had a report on her desk indicating Koresh would do exactly this in a ultimate confrontation scenario. Did she read it? Did she act on it? Who ever compiled it apparantly did a LOT better job than either Reno, the ATF, or the FBI.
And THAT is why we continue to mention these incidents.
BCCL
Member
So even though they have harmed nobody, as long as a citizen can be demonized just for their beliefs, it's OK to kill them?
Actualy that is a common misconception.
They do in fact make many of the rules. Even they would tell you differently though.
There is only a set amount of gun laws. They use thier discretion to decide what the regulations are.
There is some actual regulations passed through congress, and then there is many more the ATF has created that they consider based on those laws.
So many of the actual regulations people are held to are ATF interpretations that are enforced as law, often including things not mentioned at all within the context of the laws they are supposedly based on.
They stretch the existing laws to create regulations that are not in law at all.
For example, possession of a short barrel that could theoreticly be used on a rifle you have that currently has a 16"+ barrel. Or possession of a buttstock that can attach to a pistol you have, even if not attached to that pistol. Or what they consider arbitratrily too many parts for one gun, so they are illegaly for another gun you also have.
For example you could have some spare stocks for your AR rifle, but they can claim it is illegal possession of a SBR because you have an AR pistol.
It took the Thompson case just to tell the ATF that no, parts that can be used legaly do not equate to an illegal firearm. The Thompson case applied to all firearms, setting precedent just like all Supreme Court decisions do. The appeal that got the case to the Supreme Court concerning Thompson was about the application of the law to parts, not the firearm itself.
Yet even today the ATF official position is that precedent only applied to a single weapon, clearly choosing to ignore the SCOTUS decision, or how SCOTUS decisions have applied to cases for hundreds of years.
The SCOTUS said it was perfectly legal to both have the parts and even convert a pistol into a rifle (with a legal 16+" barrel) by adding the proper barrel and stock and then to reverse it back into a pistol.
The ATF argued no in court. The ATF lost.
The ATF official position after that loss is "Well um, ..then it only applies to that one single gun and kit!"
You know like Heller only applied to that one make and model pistol he tried to register in D.C. and not to any other.
In fact according to them a perfectly legal pistol in pistol configuration is itself possession of a SBR if it was ever at any time legaly configured into a rifle configuration. They consider it an illegal firearm made from a rifle even if you purchased it is a pistol, which qualifies as a SBR under the NFA.
The SCOTUS said otherwise for all firearms in Thompson, but ATF unwilling to lose has decided what the SCOTUS decision meant. It applied to a single firearm and a kit no longer made.
So they are so impartial on the issue that they go out of thier way to redfine or defy the Supreme Court over gun control.
That is just one example.
The ATF does in fact make a lot of the regulations and gun restrictions.
They often argue thier limited ability to succeed is restrictions placed on them. That they could be much more effective if more gun control could be passed and limitations like the FOPA (which prevents the federal government from creating, maintaining, or otherwise contributing in any way to a database on gun ownership) could be undone.
It does not mean everyone in the organization is good or bad or pro or anti. Though a career with a firearm enforcement branch of government is likely to appeal to a certain type of individual.
No. Regulation of Alcohol was transfered to the Alcohol and Tobacco Tax and Trade Bureau in 2003.
The A and the T of ATF no longer even apply. They do not deal with taxation or enforcement of Alcohol or Tobacco regulations anymore.
They also were transfered from the Treasury Department to the DOJ. So thier primary role is as a gun control LEO agency not tax collection.
Like many agencies in government they become self serving. People are employed who have thier career and thier retirement wrapped up in the agency. They always argue for a larger budget, more gun control, and anything that gives them more power. They are in favor of thier career and thier agency, and thier agency exists to enforce, regulate and create gun control.
They must present reasons for thier existance and expansion. They must make so many arrests, whether of bad people or those who made an honest mistake. They have to be able to present the case that thier federal funding is necessary, the continuation of the agency is necessary, and the expansion of thier agency is vital to the USA on a regular basis.
Like most branches of government they fight hard. Thier entire existence is for gun control.
Part of the fight for them is exaggerating thier necessity and effectiveness and showing results.
Whether you are some bad guy, or an individual that had a spare barrel for your AR pistol that you sold (which means you are now in illegal possession of a SBR if you own an AR rifle) it does not matter. Arrests and prosecution proves thier effectiveness and validates thier budget.
archigos
Member
If we get Congress to pass more gun-friendly legislation and anti-criminal legislation, and a President who will sign them into law, and a Justice system that won't deep-six them, then the ATF will not be anti-gun. They will only investigate and bust real criminals.
Pro or anti is not the right way to think about the ATF. They are an enforcement agency. If they come for you you will be scared. Enforcement agencies are rarely pro anything. It is not their job to give out smiley face stickers to gun owners.
Deanimator
Member
So, exactly what "laws" did the Black BATF agents "violate" that they had "problems" with them? Why did they have to file a Federal lawsuit for racial discrimination and harassment against the BATF to end these "problems"?
camslam
Member
Riiiiiiiiiiggggggggghhhhhhhhhhtttttt.
Just like the right way to look at the IRS isn't - are they pro taxes or anti taxes, they are just collecting your money and depending on what itch they have at the moment they are auditing you and ruining your life, whether you are honest or not. Kind of easy to make a mistake with the 14 inch thick Tax Code.
Look, bottom line, they are like just about every other government agency and program, which is they are a high cost, overzealous, pain in the ass.
If you are a gun owner, gun seller, or 2nd amendment supporter, I would imagine you would want absolutely NOTHING to do with the ATF. And you can quote me on that.
The ATF has arbitrarily ruled many times. More recent examples are calling all steel-core 7.62x39mm ammunition "armor-piercing handgun ammunition" and ruling the Striker-12, Streetsweeper, and USAS-12 destructive devices.
John
John
- Status
