The ATF is getting out of control ATF Who is running this agency? Lindsey Lohan?

While I would not shed a single tear if the ATF (batfe) were to go, dumping the AFT would not get rid of the onerous laws which they enforce.
Who then would enforce them ? I’m betting that the fact that the ATFs
territory is already covered by overlapping federal and local jurisdictions would go unnoticed. So who would then be chosen to step into the ‘gap’ left by the ATFs
disappearance ?
Who wants to lay bets that HOMELAND security would be tapped for that ?
Do we really want them to be responsible for enforcing firearms regulations ?

What we all need to do is to contact our reps, senators and say enough is enough, if they disagree with you then spread the word out and vote him/her out next election.

There are too many cooks, when it come down to gun laws. The Federal Govt, State Govt, City Govt, ATF, FBI, and every other bureau has thier own laws they want enforced. One set of laws for the whole country is all we need, but that would be too easy, and / or make sense, and that just isn't the way the Govt. works.

All creatures are born equal, but some are more equal than other..

The problem is that with the federal government all the laws are usually found under US Code and then, you have different agencies enforcing their respective parts of the US Code. The state has the right to legislate their own laws on top of the federal laws and then you have the city/county, which has their right also to enact bylaws. They all (federal/state/county) are supposed to enforce their respective acts (laws) with first and foremost protecting the rights under the constitution of the accused AND the rights of the state. Too often, this is not followed or the encounter between law enforcement and clients gets to the point where officer discretion gets forced into charges instead of warning (education) for the client. And finally there are too many laws that are antiquated and should be taken off the books. A little common sense and give and take is all too often not even considered because we all get on our high horse and "Its MY right" is the first thing out of our mouths. Everyone and especially our younger generation are all too quick to tell us of their rights and they can't even give one of their responsibilities. Who's to blame? We all are. We should have been teaching old school like President Kennedy expounded, " Ask what not what can the country do for me but rather what can I do for my country." Applicable advice to any country and great words from a great man. We elected them and we will reap what we sow.
Thus ends my rant.

My problem with all of this is not the enforcement of the laws, but the fact that the ATF is making up new ones as they go. Telling all of the gun dealers in Arizona, New Mexico, Texas, and California that they now need to report legal multiple Rifle sales, is not thier job. If the law already existed, then they can enforce it. I thought our representatives were supposed to vote on new laws first.

CB, I think you hit the nail on the head there. I think everyone in govt. has forgotten the simple fact that THEY work for US, the poor working schmucks out here paying the taxes.

cbsweeney wrote:

My problem with all of this is not the enforcement of the laws, but the fact that the ATF is making up new ones as they go. Telling all of the gun dealers in Arizona, New Mexico, Texas, and California that they now need to report legal multiple Rifle sales, is not thier job. If the law already existed, then they can enforce it. I thought our representatives were supposed to vote on new laws first.

The simple answer is for the affected persons or companies to say "Show me the legal authority under which you are demanding this information." If they can't then you have the right to refuse the demand. A demand upon a citizen can only be made (to my recollection) under an Act, a search warrant, a production order (here in Canada and probably in the US also) or in an emergency, under police powers; that is to say; a criminal act that is about to be committed, is being committed, has just been committed, or in fresh pursuit. And some government managers every year go beyond their authority to try and make their policy (not law) into law and deprive citizens from their right(s) under the constitution. For that they usually get their pee pee slapped!
Don't forget that we all are from Missouri! And the point that you say that only four states (All bordering old Mexico) says that there is a problem (unknown to us at this time) that needs to be addressed. The public does not have the right to know what investigations are ongoing or planned because it compromises the investigation and either indirectly or directly affects the security of persons or the state.

inthedark wrote:

The public does not have the right to know what investigations are ongoing or planned because it compromises the investigation and either indirectly or directly affects the security of persons or the state.

Alittle Dictatorship like don't you think?

Both in Canada and the US, there must be a legal reason known to each and everyone effected, by means of a warrant for them to collect information on you if its not specifically mentioned as to why in the law.

Each store, and each person who's information is being submitted, must have a warrant served, stating as to the legal reason why this is going on, irregardless of the "security" aspect.

There is a reason why we have these kids of laws you know. Yes many criminals end up getting away with murder, rape and a bunch of other things cause of due process, but we are still innocent till proven guilty not the other way around.

Dimitri

Dimitri,
The national shooting sports foundation, and the NRA are filing a suit against the ATF for the reasons that you and inthedark brought up. I just don't understand why they would think they could get away with it. It's not like they they have been low key lately. People are still angry about project gunrunner.

cbsweeney wrote:

One set of laws for the whole country is all we need, but that would be too easy, and / or make sense, and that just isn't the way the Govt. works.

I agree 110%, but like you said it would be to easy. Like I said in my earlier post, to many laws overlap each other from federal, state on down. Now I just heard that the atf has established 6 or 7 zones in the US that cover x amount of states per zone. According to atf website, its to get a better grasp of state and local firearm laws.

Like you said cb, it just doesn't make any sense.

Here is the Link for ATF ATF Examiners

Quote::

WHAT RIGHT DOES THE PUBLIC HAVE TO KNOW ABOUT AN INVESTIGATION? SHOW ME. INVESTIGATIONS ARE "NEED TO KNOW".

The moment they are being investigated and the police are doing things that would normally require a warrant, the people under investigation have a right to know.

Quote::

ANYONE IN LAW ENFORCEMENT OR THE MILITARY ARE TAUGHT THAT IN THE VERY BEGINNING. TO OPEN YOUR MOUTH COSTS LIVES OTHERWISE.

While it might cost lives, the fact remains they are basically investigating each and every gun buyer, which means they still need a warrant. Even if it costs them lives of police officers (unlikely in this case), or costs them the investigation (more likely).

Quote::

YES, SO?

So the legal system requires warrants for information to be collected by the police on private citizens. Therefor the ATF is in violation of the people in 4 states rights.

Quote::

PRODUCTION ORDER

They are only valid when the police are seeking information regarding the Competition Act. Otherwise they are just a means for the police to collect the phone numbers of the people someone calls and tax data already at Canada Revenue, nothing more is allowed in the Criminal Code.

Quote::

PERSONS NAMED IN A PRODUCTION ORDER ARE NOT LEGALLY ENTITLED TO THE INFORMATION UNLESS THEY CAN IN COURT, PROVE THEIR 'NEED TO KNOW' THE INFORMATION.

That is because the part that has the documents is not the person under investigation. So while they need a warrant to do anything with the data collected, they do not need to explain to 3rd parties which are the ones served with production orders the reasoning behind it. However the intended company/person under investigation does get served a warrant.

Quote::

ALL LAW IN BOTH COUNTRIES MUST AND IS CARRIED OUT WITH FIRST PROTECTING THOSE RIGHTS OF THE PERSON FIRST AND THEN THE LAW FOR WHICH THEY ARE INVESTIGATING

Apparently not when you feel that the people being investigated do not need to know what they are being investigated for.

Dimitri

'Mitri...Ron is correct when he says..."The public does not have the right to know what investigations are ongoing or planned because it compromises the investigation and either indirectly or directly affects the security of persons or the state."

An investigation is usually opened by the Police when a complaint is made or they come into information that someone is allegedly committing a crime. The Police will conduct their investigation in many ways...sometimes bringing the alleged wrong doer in and questioning him/her... questioning witnesses before approaching the alleged wrong doer to gain information that may mean the investigation is either dropped or escalates.

If the Police deem it necessary to conduct a physical search of a premises, then (in Australia) they must first have a Search Warrant authorised by a Magistrate or a Justice of the Peace...in most cases, the first time an alleged wrong doer becomes aware of an investigation is when there is a knock at his door and the Police are standing there with a copy of the Search Warrant for him. It needs to be this way for several reasons, the primary one I can think of being the alleged wrong doer does not have the opportunity to dispose of any evidence that will link him to a crime (drugs, stolen property, weapons etc).

I am aware of many investigations that have been ongoing for many months, in some cases years, without the person or persons being investigated being aware (that I know of) that they are under investigation. Examples of this is the many ongoing investigations into the Mafia, Drug Cartels and outlaw bikers (OMG). Because of the close-lipped nature of these organisations it takes many months or years to infiltrate, gain the confidence of them then gather information.

As Ron says...it is "need to know". The Military and Police must have this in place in order to conduct the investigation in a fair and proper manner. Although in the case of the Military it means word does not get around for an impending or planned operation. Imagine the repercussions if (in a military scenario) the enemy were aware of an impending operation/attack or a well armed crime gang were made aware of an impending search. Need to know also allows for a Jury of Peers to be selected without undue influence if and when a wrong doer is tried in a Court of Law.

Keeping the investigation under wraps or quiet does not mean the Police are being underhanded...it just means that only those that need to know are in the loop, and the wrong doer is not one, until such time as he is called to answer questions or his premises is to be searched. There are dirty cops or informers in every organisation.

I understand your feelings about a person's rights etc, but there are times when those rights take a back seat to the needs of society. This does not mean that their rights are taken away...that will never happen. Having said that, it is far better that 10 guilty men get away than just one innocent man is wrongfully jailed.

This is a subject that can be debated for ever and a day without any agreement being reached, but at the end of the day, the needs and security of society must be uppermost.

Cheers, Vince

Vince wrote:

I understand your feelings about a person's rights etc, but there are times when those rights take a back seat to the needs of society. This does not mean that their rights are taken away...that will never happen.

But who gets to say what is best for society? Especially since this is clearly related to the gun running into Mexico, of which the BATF has quite a bad record with already, knowingly allowing guns to enter Mexico.

Police here need detail warrants on the matter at hand to collect information on internet use for one example. And these warrants must be named to who the are investigating, and the reasons. Sure the ISP might be the only one to see that specific warrant, but the fact remains they still need a warrant.

Just as in the USA, for them to collect information not mentioned in any law, they need to serve each and every store a warrant, with a name of the purchaser and with the reason to search. Otherwise the rights of both the store to keep their customers information private, and the rights of the purchasers to expect their information to be kept private becomes violated.

Letting people, especially governments and police forces bypass the check's and balances already in place is a very slippery slope. Irregardless if its the "best for society".

Dimitri