Permission for another "Fast and Furious"?

[Davek1977]

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2012/feb/15/obamas-fast-and-furious-spin/

November, the president signed the Justice Department appropriations bill, which included language from Sen. John Cornyn, Texas Republican, prohibiting federal agencies from facilitating the transfer of an operable firearm to an individual known or suspected to be in a drug cartel, unless they monitor the weapon at all times.

Now Mr. Obama is proposing to remove that provision from the 2013 spending bill, thus making it legal to revive gun-walking operations in the future. The White House justification is merely that the prohibition is “not necessary.”

Appearently, Obama's new budget includes something that lifts the provision banning funding for gun walking operations like "Fast and Furious" under the premise is simply "isn't needed". Anyone else appalled by this blatant disregard for common sense?

 

[P-32]

This is scary. Obama is going to ignore the Constitution once again and nobody will call him on it.

 

[JRH6856]

Obama is going to ignore the Constitution once again and nobody will call him on it.

Yes, he will ignore it. He won't change. He will get called on it. Again. The Senate was pretty well agreed when they passed the ban he wants to lift.(99-1)

 

[Holling]

Here is another great idea from the empty suit:

More of Obamas great leadership

 

[danfive555]

Oops. Removed.

 

[22-rimfire]

Our President is discovering that many people don't support his ideas. If so, he would have no probem passing a federal budget or passing new legislation with bipartisan support. His new budget proposal only has merit as a campaign issue and not a practical solution to our fiscal issues.

 

[Deus Machina]

The provision isn't needed.

We should never need to put common sense on paper.

 

[Sgt_R]

To be fair, the president is technically correct. It shouldn't be necessary to have to explicitly tell the federal government not to provide functional firearms to known or suspected criminals...

On the other hand, the provision is pretty worthless. Since it was already illegal to do what they did, making it more illegal won't stop them from doing it again.

R

 

[Standing Wolf]

The provision isn't needed.
We should never need to put common sense on paper.

You're most of the way there, Deus Machina. Straw sales of firearms are already illegal, and so are sales to criminals. No, we surely shouldn't need to reiterate illegal sales of firearms are illegal; in this case, however, I doubt it could hurt to send the "Justice" Department a reminder.

That said™, the reminder is a token. What's really needed is to cut the "Justice" Department's budget by a large amount. High and mighty government types tend to sneer at the law, but budget cuts get their attention.

 

[jerkface11]

The constitution already bans it. Something about giving aid or comfort to our enemies.

 

[Carl N. Brown]

^ US Constitution, Article III, Section 3

Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying
war against them, or in adhering to their enemies, giving them
aid and comfort. ...

The view in Latin America, though, is that the US was arming the Sinaloa Cartel to go after the Los Zetas Cartel by proxy. That's giving aid and comfort (arms) to the enemy of your enemy (the stuck on stupid meme).

If the deaths from Fast and Furious match the deaths from the Mexican drug war in general, of the ~200 or so deaths, ~180 would be cartel members, ~14 would be military or police, and 6 or 8 would be civilians as collateral damage. As the ATF supervisor told ATF field agents, "If you're going to make an omelette, you've got to break some eggs."