Silveira case, breaking news: ever wanted to see a PISSED OFF JUDGE!?

[Preacherman]

Point 1: This is your moderator speaking. Please, folks, when you post, remember to take The High Road. Insults and personal remarks are NOT appropriate, and WILL be stomped on.

Point 2: Shamaya, I want to differ with you in regard to the ATF. Sure, some of their members have behaved like "jack-booted thugs", and this is well documented. However, this agency does a whole lot of really important and valuable work, and you should not dismiss the whole barrel of apples for the sake of some bad fruit. In the fight against international gun-running (e.g. the smuggling of guns to the IRA and other terrorist organizations), the analysis of explosives used in crimes, and a bunch of other areas, the ATF does a very good job under very difficult and dangerous conditions. Even in their "gun-law enforcement" mode, there are many good, upright, honest agents who are pro-2nd Amendment and do their best to put a "human face" on an otherwise problematic bureaucracy. I've had the pleasure of getting to know a few of them, and have found them to be straight-up guys who would "cover my 6" anytime - as I would do for them.

So, please don't issue a blanket condemnation like:

BATF is to gun owners what Hitler's SS Troops were to Jews. They're not as advanced in some ways, but just as bad and even worse in others. I stand by that statement and will never back down from it. Jack Booted THUGS.

This may apply to some of them, but is most emphatically FALSE as a general statement. It's also not taking The High Road, which we encourage whenever possible.

 

[tyme]

[blockquote](AS) And thank you. We believe our case will be heard and won, 7-2 or better.[/blockquote]
Wow! I cannot wait to read KABA's forthcoming law review article.
[blockquote](PM) However, this agency does a whole lot of really important and valuable work...analysis of explosives...[/blockquote]
I'm not sure they do a whole lot of it relative to their enforcement of gun regulations, but yeah, I'll grant that they do some work that ought to be done by the FBI, and it's important work.
[blockquote](PM) In the fight against international gun-running (e.g. the smuggling of guns to the IRA and other terrorist organizations)[/blockquote]
If this is such a problem, why is it the U.S. Government's problem? Perhaps MI6 should send secret agents over here to trail known IRA gun-runners. Isn't this really an issue for British Customs?

Whether particular BATF field agents are nice most of the time is irrelevant. At best, their niceness dulls the reality that they are annoying agents of a clearly unconstitutional arms-control scheme supported by [at least portions of] every branch of government, people who would be prosecuted under RICO statutes if their government umbrella got carried off by the wind. At worst, they are murderers, liars, and terrorists.

If they want to be involved in a morally bankrupt enterprise, they should deal heroin. At least then they'd make more money, they'd have (at least temporarily) satisfied customers, and their work would be more honest.

Some of the most heinous criminals in history seemed nice to those who knew them. Some had families. Some of the very worst even worked for governments, and were ordinary, humble people outside of their jobs. I'm baffled why people think that really bad government agents would appear to be psychopaths. Not too many of them are.

 

[Jim March]

Preacherman:

I believe there's a "structural problem" with the BATF(E) that has existed for a long time. Or rather, there's actually two:

1) When you have a regulatory agency that also contains an enforcement division which enforces those "regulations", the "armed enforcers" take any violation of said regulations as an "insult", and expend law enforcement resources out of all proportion to the actual problem. It's worse when the armed enforcers "specialize" in just those regulations.

This isn't just a BATF problem; wardens of the California Department of Fish & Game have been spotted going to insane lengths to grab somebody's ferrets, including in one case a multi-day stakeout .

Agencies gain regulatory power by the authority of Congress. That alone is a blend of "legislative" and "executive" authority. Once the agency has it's own armed enforcers, the blend is simply WAY too much, and graphically illustrates why the legislative and executive branches were split in the first place.

2) I would argue that even when the regulatory/enforcement functions are properly split (as they've *never* been at the BATF), having cops that "specialize" in a certain area of law is a bad idea because again, "perspective is lost". At least 21 members of the SFPD saw my skinnykitties over several years, and none considered them a "serious law enforcement issue". Had just one warden seen 'em, he/she/it would have gone utterly bananas.

------------

Of these two problems, I consider #1 the most serious and something that must be stomped out at all costs.

#2 is going to happen to some degree, but can be massively scaled back from where it's at now. BATF(E) in particular should be rolled into the FBI. The merger of Customs and DEA is a partial blueprint, although it can be done better.

 

[Preacherman]

Tyme, Jim, you'll note that I'm not arguing with the position that the ATF has committed some monumental mistakes, even criminal ones: nor do I disagree that individual ATF agents have behaved like "jack-booted thugs", to quote an oft-used expression. I also agree with you, Jim, that:

...there's a "structural problem" with the BATF(E) that has existed for a long time.

Nevertheless, I must request that our discussion of the ATF take The High Road. Let's not condemn anyone and everyone working for the ATF - that would be monumentally stupid on our part, and completely unjustifiable. That was my point in responding to Shamaya's post. We can discuss the shortcomings of the ATF - and I agree that there are many - without becoming as obnoxious and anti-social as some of their agents have become... Blanket condemnations are a blunt instrument, frequently too unwieldy to perform the surgical dissection of the problem that is really required to solve it.

 

[tyme]

I'm confused. Most people here seem to believe in responsibility. Are they responsible for working for what is primarily a crime syndicate, or are they not? You can probably take particular BATF employees and show they couldn't get any other job paying enough to support their family due to whatever exigent circumstances, but seriously, at that point why not sell drugs? Is being a BATF employee better than dealing drugs? Dare we contemplate which profession most of the founders would go into were they asked to choose? There are a variety of less-risky crimes, even, and at least when committing those crimes they wouldn't pretend to be doing what's right. They wouldn't pretend to be a part of civilized society.

Is it morally acceptable to work for the Mafia as long as you're not personally involved in killing or stealing?

Jim, I'm not sure the SFPD's impression of ferrets means much. The SFPD doesn't consider crackheads shooting up in public and theft to be serious law enforcement issues, either.

 

[Jim March]

You know, Tyme has a point (about BATF, not the ferrets ).

The sheer volume of complaints about BATF, the number of truly whacked incidents means that anybody really sane would have got the heck out . I mean, the entire Beavis & Butthead movie was one long jest at the BATF's expense, that sort of thing has to have it's effect on department morale!

At what point do you start to wonder about those left?

Sorry if that offends anybody but, it's a serious question.

 

[Coronach]

Jim, I'm not sure the SFPD's impression of ferrets means much. The SFPD doesn't consider crackheads shooting up [sic] in public and theft to be serious law enforcement issues, either.

Careful, Tyme. You'll get voted off the libertarian island. Many of the more vocal THR members wouldn't consider crackheads plying their trade in public to be a LE issue, either.

Mike

 

[Jim March]

Not to mention that "crackheads" by definition don't shoot up!. They smoke the crap.



Seriously though, the very fact that drugs are illegal contributes to the massive nuisance value connected with using/selling/making the stuff. I'm quite severely libertarian, but I dang well drove a meth lab out of the basement of my apartment building once .

 

[mercedesrules]

The Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms is an armed tax-collection agency. How many here think these products should be taxed? How many here like these taxes?

I think taxes are theft, so I don't think that there can be any such thing as a good BATF agent.

To me, the "high road" should be the moral high ground. One group of men taxing another group on their alcohol, tobacco and firearms purchases is immoral. When government stops stealing from me, I'll stop criticizing them.

MR