What the some former AFT agents think

[The Freeholder]

What the some former ATF agents think

At the risk of starting a thread that is going to get locked down very quickly, I'd like to bring this to everyone's attention.

I received an email from the Citizens Committee for the Right to Keep and Bear Arms with an interesting quote, attributed to Gerald Nunziato, the former head of ATF's National Tracing Center.

"If it wasn't for criminals, there wouldn't be a gun industry in this country," Nunziato said, adding that the claims of the NRA and other gun-rights groups that they are protecting law-abiding citizens with their policies are false.

"The only people it's protecting are criminals."

There's a lot more of this. I've tracked down the original article , which appeared in the Houston Chronicle. Read the whole thing, but you might want to remove throwables from your vicinity while you do.

Discussion anyone?

(Editied to correct the misspelling of ATF in the header. :banghead: )

 

[Joejojoba111]

At least it's good to have insight into their minds, before I had unsubstantiated hunches that kind of thinking was present, now it's somewhat substantiated, but I recognize it doesn't apply to everyone. However, they sound like bullies bragging, so I'm already applying (unsubstantiated) behavior ratios that I grew up with to assume what percentages are bullies and related behaviours.

Insiders reporting on their training and indoctrination were impressed with the pseudo machismo present in all training, from briefings to raids, and assumed it was a morale-building exercise. Maybe it's just really how they think.

Good to know, but still trying not to judge. My it's getting hard, though.

 

[cracked butt]

Welcome to the bizzaro world of government 'service.'
The BATF followed up a fraction of a percentage of people who were denied purchases due to a criminal background.
We even had a BATF agent from the local regional office quote in the local newspaper a few years back that they don't even bother to check out felons who try to purchase guns unless they already have 4 or 5 prior violent felony convictions.

If their feet are held to the fire, its easy enough to blame the gun lobby especially the NRA for their failures.

 

[Phantom Warrior]

But the former ATF officials say the NRA's policies actually protect criminal gun purchases because they are the bread and butter of the U.S. gun industry. Since a gun lasts about 100 years, most law-abiding gun owners buy only one or a few in their lifetime, Nunziato said.

Criminals, on the other hand, buy new firearms every few years, he said.

HA HA HA.....BWAH HA HA HA HA HA......AHHH HA HAH AH HAHA HA. No wait...HA HA HA HA HA....only a few guns....HA HA HA HA. He actually thinks that....HA HA HA HA.

Seriously, what a idiot. Anyone that believes law-abiding gunowners rarely purchase firearms needs to get his head out of his bum.

 

[txgho1911]

blog responses

Can be searched for here:

http://www.lonestartimes.com/

http://www.bloghouston.net/

Here is what lead me to these sites. http://www.chronicallybiased.com/
Currently offline and available in an archive format.

 

[Standing Wolf]

At least it's good to have insight into their minds...

At least, in the loose sense of the term "minds."

 

[Fletchette]

In the ATF's eyes, we are all criminals.

 

[Risasi]

In the ATF's eyes, we are all criminals.

Maybe, maybe not. Hey I've been shooting with some of the Federales. ATF and FBI. Some are decent, some aren't. And they have let me shoot their toys. Likewise I would let them shoot some of my stuff. But I certainly do make extra sure to dot my I's and cross my T's though...

 

[whm1974]

Seriously, what a idiot. Anyone that believes law-abiding gunowners rarely purchase firearms needs to get his head out of his bum.

How many gunowners do we even know that only have a one or two guns?

-Bill

 

[Jeff White]

Gerald Nunziato, former head of ATF's National Tracing Center and now a partner in Crime Gun Solutions, an anti-gun consulting firm, told the Houston Chronicle Sunday, "If it wasn't for criminals, there wouldn't be a gun industry in this country."

Do you think that his statements might have just a little something to do with how he earns his living these days? The man is a propagandist. His former employment has nothing to do with it. It only gives him credibility in the eyes of those people who don't care to learn the facts.

Nunziato was in charge of the ATF's National Tracing Center from late 1991 through the end of 1998 under the Clinton Administration. He opposed the Lawful Commerce in Arms Act of 2004, and as far back as 2002, he was claiming to Bill Moyers in a PBS program called "Gun Land" that "Terrorists could come to this country and obtain firearms so easy ... We sell anything in this country. It's very easy to obtain weapons here from gun shows, pawn shops, straw purchases, relatives, through newspaper ads."

Do you suppose that it's possible that a high level appointee to an executive branch agency might be expected to toe the party line of his boss? You don't think people get put into positions like that based on merit do you?

The guy is a professional lobbyist making big bucks (or trying to) by selling his former title to a cause. It wasn't in vogue for executive branch employees to comment on pending legislation until the Clinton administration. In fact there used to be rules against it.

IMHO this is a non-story. We should worry about the current people in the executive branch and we should get the rules on political activity by executive branch employees fixed.

Jeff

 

[whm1974]

Do you think that his statements might have just a little something to do with how he earns his living these days? The man is a propagandist. His former employment has nothing to do with it. It only gives him credibility in the eyes of those people who don't care to learn the facts.

Do you suppose that it's possible that a high level appointee to an executive branch agency might be expected to toe the party line of his boss? You don't think people get put into positions like that based on merit do you?

He who pays the piper calls the tune. Also keep in mind that high level govenment employees may say thing in PUBLIC that they don't agree with.

-Bill

 

[Art Eatman]

"IMHO this is a non-story. We should worry about the current people in the executive branch and we should get the rules on political activity by executive branch employees fixed."

While I agree with the second sentence, I disagree with the premise of "non-story".

It's always a problem for us when any BS-spouter gets any sort of widespread public audience. That's enabled the passage of the majority of all anti-gun legislation. "I read it in the paper, so it must be true." or "That fella on TV said..."

Bad law gets support due to ignorance and misinformation and lies...

Art

 

[longrifleman]

Nunziato was in charge of the ATF's National Tracing Center from late 1991 through the end of 1998 under the Clinton Administration.

How many current employees was he responsible for hiring/ promoting to management positions while he was there? Do you think the attitude of the people he hired will mirror his? We will be dealing with this guy untill all his minions retire.

 

[Kalrog]

How many gunowners do we even know that only have a one or two guns?

The ones just starting out?

 

[The Freeholder]

Do you think that his statements might have just a little something to do with how he earns his living these days?

Of course they do. I didn't fall off the truck last night.

Do you suppose that it's possible that a high level appointee to an executive branch agency might be expected to toe the party line of his boss? You don't think people get put into positions like that based on merit do you?

Trust me, I have way too much experience with government, from various levels and from both sides of the fence. This weasel probably wouldn't know merit if it bit him, and he'll most assuredly toe the party line--as long as it's his party.

I'll tell you one thing I've discovered while in government "service"--there are way more "true believers" employed by the various agencies than most of us would believe. And that ranges from enviro-nuts at EPA to the "only police should have guns" crowd at various law enforcement agencies.

(I do realize that's a broad generalization, thanks. I know there are good and bad types at all government agencies. But isn't it funny that we always seem to see so many more of the bad, whether it's at the DMV renewing our driver's license or the Chief LEO denying a CC permit for no reason other than he doesn't want to hand it out? Funny how that works....)

IMHO this is a non-story. We should worry about the current people in the executive branch and we should get the rules on political activity by executive branch employees fixed.

You're half right. We should worry more about the current employees, since they can do us the most immediate harm. It is also a story, since it is another piece of evidence added to the growing stack labeled "ATF".

I expect that most of us have heard plenty of stories about ATF abuse of power. No? Look here. The site's a little over the top, but the info is accurate, as far as I can tell. If that doesn't work for you, refer to our own John Ross's book, Unintended Consequences. The first time I read it, I really couldn't believe that this stuff wasn't made up, so I did my own fact checking. It's all accurate--if anything, it's understated. (While I'm at it, thanks, Mr. Ross. You brought me out of the closet, radicalized me, taught me a few things and made a difference in my life. My wife hates you. )

Face it--this is how a lot of LEOs, local state and federal, look at us e-e-e-vil gun owners. We are all incipient criminals, just because we choose to excercise our God-given right to own those tools that allow us to protect ourselves and our loved ones, or allow us to hunt poor Bambi, or just go enjoy a few hours pinging steel or punching holes in paper.

As far as they're concerned, we are just as much the Bad Guys--they just haven't caught us at it yet.

I have a few other thoughts on the subject that I've posted on my blog, should anyone care to read. I plan on more, just as soon as I've thought it through throughly.

 

[PaulV]

I e-mailed a friend this story and he has a different take.

"If it wasn't for criminals, there wouldn't be a gun industry in this country."

This statement if viewed properly is most likely true.

Our industry started because of the criminals that were besetting us from the British Isles and clad in Red Coats.

Knowing that Criminals have a tendency to migrate to positions of control we set up the 2nd amendment to counter them and thus began a healthy arms business.

 

[Jeff White]

Face it--this is how a lot of LEOs, local state and federal, look at us e-e-e-vil gun owners. We are all incipient criminals, just because we choose to excercise our God-given right to own those tools that allow us to protect ourselves and our loved ones, or allow us to hunt poor Bambi, or just go enjoy a few hours pinging steel or punching holes in paper.

As far as they're concerned, we are just as much the Bad Guys--they just haven't caught us at it yet.

Let's try to stay away from broad generalities like this. First off study after study has discovered that most LEOs, local, state and federal support RKBA. Often their politically appointed masters don't, but in most cases they have no idea what happens out on the street and toe the party line that those who they are beholden to for their job requires of them. CCW would not be legal in many states if it wasn't for the support of rank and file peace officers at all levels.

Jeff

 

[The Freeholder]

Let's try to stay away from broad generalities like this. First off study after study has discovered that most LEOs, local, state and federal support RKBA. Often their politically appointed masters don't, but in most cases they have no idea what happens out on the street and toe the party line that those who they are beholden to for their job requires of them. CCW would not be legal in many states if it wasn't for the support of rank and file peace officers at all levels.

I thought I had already addressed that point, though I'll admit it was earlier in my reply:

(I do realize that's a broad generalization, thanks. I know there are good and bad types at all government agencies. But isn't it funny that we always seem to see so many more of the bad, whether it's at the DMV renewing our driver's license or the Chief LEO denying a CC permit for no reason other than he doesn't want to hand it out? Funny how that works....)

And I have to stand beside what I said, which was "A lot of LEOs...". Not all, perhaps not even a majority, but a lot. And the problem is that "lot" seems to be those who are able to get quoted in the media--chiefs, sheriffs, agents of the sexy agencies. And "new media" not withstanding, traditional media has a great deal to do with forming public opinion.

I'd feel a lot more comfortable with the situation if the LEOs who support RKBA would do so publicly, rather than in some poll. Support in a poll is just dandy--but is Mr. Law Enforcement Officer going to stand up in public after his chief has just announced his support for a renewed AWB and call "BS"? Somehow, I don't think so, because he, like his boss the chief, has to toe the line or lose his job.

So when the gun grabbers start to huff and puff for a new gun grab, is the line officer going to say something in public and make a stand? Or will he grouse to his buddies that this isn't right, but go along with it anyway, since it's his job on the line if he speaks out (using that 1st Amendment right that is starting to sound like it isn't all that useful either, I might add)? Or will he not even trust his buddies on the force, and just keep his objections to himself and wind up enforcing a law that he knows in his heart is wrong?

Which will it be? Of course it will depend on the individual, but my guess is that Choice #1 is off the table. Get fired, lose your POST, lose your career.

So we're left with #2 and #3, neither of which will do the gun owners any good at all.

So I'm sorry if the silent majority of LEOs who support RKBA are insulted, but they need to stop being silent if they want my respect and support. It doesn't make any difference if the majority of LEOs and the whole US population agrees with us and supports the 2nd Ammendment. A vocal minority can overcome that easily--as long as that majority stays silent.

 

[usem]

Not only won't they admit that they are RKBA,

They will also come take your guns rather than give up their cushy job and pension. Don't ever doubt it. They may be nice guys, but they will become the enemy one day(the ones who aren't already, that is.)

 

[Jeff White]

I'd feel a lot more comfortable with the situation if the LEOs who support RKBA would do so publicly, rather than in some poll. Support in a poll is just dandy--but is Mr. Law Enforcement Officer going to stand up in public after his chief has just announced his support for a renewed AWB and call "BS"? Somehow, I don't think so, because he, like his boss the chief, has to toe the line or lose his job.

So the public support to expand CCW that Sheriffs associations, and associations of rank and file officers that often pitted our lobbyists against lobbyists from IACP, NAPO and other police executive organizations in the state houses during past legislative fights doesn't count as public support???

Rank and file officers are usually forbidden from speaking out publically on political issues. In the past those rules have been sidestepped by officers forming committees and associations just so they can speak out through those committees.

So when the gun grabbers start to huff and puff for a new gun grab, is the line officer going to say something in public and make a stand? Or will he grouse to his buddies that this isn't right, but go along with it anyway, since it's his job on the line if he speaks out (using that 1st Amendment right that is starting to sound like it isn't all that useful either, I might add)? Or will he not even trust his buddies on the force, and just keep his objections to himself and wind up enforcing a law that he knows in his heart is wrong?

As I mentioned above and you're well aware of, the rank and file officer is mostly forbidden from using his position to speak out on pending legislation. That's why we form associations and join organizations like the LEAA.

Being a peace officer is not like being a soldier. If a law is passed, it's the law until it's either repealed or declared unconstitutional by the courts. Nothing in any oath of office or peace officers commission I've ever seen empowers the officer to judge the constitutionality of the laws on the books. That job rightfully belongs to the courts and the legislature.

We do have discretion. How that discretion is used, varies by the individual officer and the agency the officer works for.

So I'm sorry if the silent majority of LEOs who support RKBA are insulted, but they need to stop being silent if they want my respect and support.

We're NOT silent. Perhaps you mistake the shills in the mainstream media only reporting the support of the chiefs for those laws because it supports the media's position.

usem said;

They will also come take your guns rather than give up their cushy job and pension. Don't ever doubt it. They may be nice guys, but they will become the enemy one day(the ones who aren't already, that is.)

Unless you're already involved in criminal activity, you're not my enemy.

Jeff

 

[Byron Quick]

I'm in the process of jumping throught the hoops to get my FFL. There is apparently a dichotomy in the BATFE internal culture. I'm not dealing with enforcement agents. The lady at the national licensing center gave me her direct phone number for any problems and has been polite, professional, timely and most helpful. The inspector who visited the proposed business premises was friendly, polite, and most helpful. Wasn't even armed.

From my experience to date, BATFE could give private businesses important information on customer service. It made me wonder where they are hiding the cat stompers.

 

[whm1974]

From my experience to date, BATFE could give private businesses important information on customer service. It made me wonder where they are hiding the cat stompers.

When you can't find the paperwork they request.

-Bill

 

[Stevie-Ray]

Years ago, the ATF rep I dealt with to acquire my FFL was top-notch. Somebody that genuinely wanted me to get my permit, and bent over backward to help. Sounds like a lot of police organizations. While the org seems to be anti-gun, many of the representatives are anything but.

 

[308win]

If 4% of the firearms dealers are responsible for selling 60% of the guns used in crimes and the ATF knows who they are shut them down.

As for terrorists stockpiling firearms from gunshows etc. why would they buy semiauto non-select fire assult weapons in the US and then go through the bother of getting them out of the country when they can buy all of the select fire they want a heck of a lot cheaper overseas? That statement shows how the little the media understands the issues of the day.

 

[Baba Louie]

As usual, if 1/2 of .01% of any group says or does something stupid, you can count on someone somewhere to make quite certain that it hits the press and foments opinion against the other 99.99% of the same group by those reading few, who are quick to judge but slower to think of both/three/all sides of the/an issue. (Jeez what a long & awkward sentence.)

I'll state that the few G-Men (or G-Women) I've ever run into (EPA, IRS, ATF, FBI) have been nothing but polite, nice and professional. Just regular folk. YMMV

I've read all kinds of horror stories, but always remember my Pa telling me to, "Only believe the things you see or do, half of what you read and nuthin' you hear". Advice that usually works out well for moi.