alan
Member
For those who read this, page 4, the 20 March issue of Gun Week contains a rather interesting piece by Dave Workman. The article is headlined ATF Official Admits Problems With Richmond Show Operation. Talk of being damned with faint praise. Unfortunately, I don't have a scanner, however if the article appears in the next on-line edition, I will post it, for the attention/interest of readers.
In any event, it strikes me that what with one thing and or another, this being an election year, our side might be able to make some possibly significant gains from this fiasco, gains in the direction of curbing the ATF. Stranger things have happened, and once again, it is an election year.
One thing required is a lot of comment and questions directed to our elected things. Re this, and the sad fact that altogether to many gun owners appear to be to lazy to act in what one would expect would be their own self interest, the required action, above mentioned, might not be attainable. That is something to consider, that and the fact that while one can lead a horse to water, one cannot make the creature drink. Seems a shame though, that being presented with what might be a real an opportunity to make possibly significant gains, that the opportunity might slip by, as a result of it's being ignored by those who should have made use of it.
For whatever it might be worth, the following is a copy of a Letter To The Editor at Gun Week that I sent earlier today. Copies of same went to my own "elected things", in addition to materials and comment I had sent to them earlier, dealing with the Richmond fiasco, and the web cast of the 28 February hearings, that wasn't, though it most certainly was scheduled.
Editor:
The complete headline reads, ATF Official Admits Problems With Richmond Show Operation, this from one Michael Bouchard, identified in the article as Assistant Director of ATF Field Operations. Talk of being "damned by faint praise".
Respecting the "residency checks" undertaken, Mr. Bouchard allowed that "there was no specific authority for the ATF to conduct residency checks". He went on to note that "it was a general investigative tool that we use". Thank goodness that Mr. Bouchard in particular and ATF in general have not concluded that drawing people on the rack might make a dandy "general investigative tool" also. It gets even better or would worse be a more appropriate description, respecting the "letters" that ATF gave to gun purchasers, whose arms they had seized, letters that are nowhere authorized or it seems had previously been used. One gets the impression that the ATF have come to believe that they are a law unto themselves, a proposition that millions of law abiding Americans would seriously question, I suspect.
Regarding the following excerpt from this article, an excerpt that refers to ATF antics, "They portrayed an operation that left members of the House astonished", the following question comes to mind. Re the alleged "astonishment of House members", is one to assume that this is the very first time that questions as to ATF tactics and or operations had ever been brought to the attention of members of The House of Representatives? Given the checkered record of ATF, I doubt that such would be the case, so from whence comes the above mentioned "astonishment"?
In conclusion, two hearings were mentioned in the article. The first of these was held on 15 February, and was web cast, which is to say that it could have been viewed on ones home computer. A second hearing was held on 28 February, this being the hearing where Mr. Bouchard testified. The second hearing was also scheduled to be web cast. Alas, it wasn't, one wonders as to why. After all, a committee of The House of Representatives, looking into the actions of an agency of the federal government, where there was no connection between agency operations and "national security" most certainly would not have had anything to hide from the people of this country, would they?
Readers are free to draw their own conclusions, however the following might be instructive. Rep. Jim Sensenbrenner is the chairperson of The House Judiciary Committee. Sensenbrenner seems to have, for whatever reason, undertaken the role of one man cheering squad for the ATF. The drawing of one's own conclusions hasn't become subversive of otherwise unpatriotic, has it?
END
Those who read the foregoing are certainly free to act as they see fit, which includes disregarding what I've written. Problem with doing nothing might well be that contemporary opportunities will not soon come this way again.
In any event, it strikes me that what with one thing and or another, this being an election year, our side might be able to make some possibly significant gains from this fiasco, gains in the direction of curbing the ATF. Stranger things have happened, and once again, it is an election year.
One thing required is a lot of comment and questions directed to our elected things. Re this, and the sad fact that altogether to many gun owners appear to be to lazy to act in what one would expect would be their own self interest, the required action, above mentioned, might not be attainable. That is something to consider, that and the fact that while one can lead a horse to water, one cannot make the creature drink. Seems a shame though, that being presented with what might be a real an opportunity to make possibly significant gains, that the opportunity might slip by, as a result of it's being ignored by those who should have made use of it.
For whatever it might be worth, the following is a copy of a Letter To The Editor at Gun Week that I sent earlier today. Copies of same went to my own "elected things", in addition to materials and comment I had sent to them earlier, dealing with the Richmond fiasco, and the web cast of the 28 February hearings, that wasn't, though it most certainly was scheduled.
Editor:
The complete headline reads, ATF Official Admits Problems With Richmond Show Operation, this from one Michael Bouchard, identified in the article as Assistant Director of ATF Field Operations. Talk of being "damned by faint praise".
Respecting the "residency checks" undertaken, Mr. Bouchard allowed that "there was no specific authority for the ATF to conduct residency checks". He went on to note that "it was a general investigative tool that we use". Thank goodness that Mr. Bouchard in particular and ATF in general have not concluded that drawing people on the rack might make a dandy "general investigative tool" also. It gets even better or would worse be a more appropriate description, respecting the "letters" that ATF gave to gun purchasers, whose arms they had seized, letters that are nowhere authorized or it seems had previously been used. One gets the impression that the ATF have come to believe that they are a law unto themselves, a proposition that millions of law abiding Americans would seriously question, I suspect.
Regarding the following excerpt from this article, an excerpt that refers to ATF antics, "They portrayed an operation that left members of the House astonished", the following question comes to mind. Re the alleged "astonishment of House members", is one to assume that this is the very first time that questions as to ATF tactics and or operations had ever been brought to the attention of members of The House of Representatives? Given the checkered record of ATF, I doubt that such would be the case, so from whence comes the above mentioned "astonishment"?
In conclusion, two hearings were mentioned in the article. The first of these was held on 15 February, and was web cast, which is to say that it could have been viewed on ones home computer. A second hearing was held on 28 February, this being the hearing where Mr. Bouchard testified. The second hearing was also scheduled to be web cast. Alas, it wasn't, one wonders as to why. After all, a committee of The House of Representatives, looking into the actions of an agency of the federal government, where there was no connection between agency operations and "national security" most certainly would not have had anything to hide from the people of this country, would they?
Readers are free to draw their own conclusions, however the following might be instructive. Rep. Jim Sensenbrenner is the chairperson of The House Judiciary Committee. Sensenbrenner seems to have, for whatever reason, undertaken the role of one man cheering squad for the ATF. The drawing of one's own conclusions hasn't become subversive of otherwise unpatriotic, has it?
END
Those who read the foregoing are certainly free to act as they see fit, which includes disregarding what I've written. Problem with doing nothing might well be that contemporary opportunities will not soon come this way again.
