ATF, Virginia Police Accused of 'Persecuting' Gun Shows

[The Real Hawkeye]

Someone should contact Tucker Carlson about this story. He hosts the show The Situation with Tucker Carlson on, I think, CNBC. He is a self described libertarian gun enthusiast, and would probably give some national attention to this story if he is informed of it. Just a thought.

 

[dbrowne1]

"How do I know that this VSP letter wasn't photoshopped?"

Because the originals are sitting on my desk in a file, and I don't have Photoshop?

 

[KLR]

"How do I know that this VSP letter wasn't photoshopped?"

Because the originals are sitting on my desk in a file, and I don't have Photoshop?

And because the result is repeatable. File a FOIA.

 

[kbr80]

"How do I know that this VSP letter wasn't photoshopped?"

So, dbrowne1 takes it upon himself, to do a FOIA, and post the results. The results tell the story, that something happened that should not have happened. Yet, with proof, people start saying it was photoshopped. Unbelievable. :banghead:

 

[KLR]

The documents would seem to indicate that while something happened, it wasn't as sensational as they had hoped. I think people were hoping for a Grassy Knoll/Watergate Break-in type of event.

I tend to like DBrowne1's theory (posted on Glocktalk) that something went awry (perhaps seriously) in the course of a fairly standard operation. I also have to admit liking the fact that his theory is pretty close to the one I proposed in the "outrage" thread.

 

[kbr80]

I have a problem with Resident Checks. That is just wrong. The way they did this operation screams intimidation. What they did, put gun owners in their place, as in "you dont have a right to own/buy a firearm, unless we say so."

 

[cropcirclewalker]

Yo, Hi, ho, Mr. dbrowne1, Welcome to THR

"How do I know that this VSP letter wasn't photoshopped?"

Because the originals are sitting on my desk in a file, and I don't have Photoshop?

I see that you have only 2 posts. Welcome

I was playing devil's advocate with the .gov apologists who insist that without Managed Media conformation, the actual live postings of a coerced witness, Mr. SIXPACK had no credibility.

I think we all, now, believe that the event actually took place. In fact it appears from your posted letter that it has been ongoing except this time they screwed up and let people know about it.

Now I want them to justify their costs. It appears that as a result of previous "Operations" they made 51 arrests. Were these arrests fruitful?

How about this last one. How come no news in the local paper about any arrests? Isn't "deterrence by interview" just another way of saying "Intimidation"? Is intimidation in the job description of these guys?

Aparently so, they listed 21 successful "deterrances by interview".

800 man days of labor, works out to 3.2 man years of labor (based on 50, 40 hour weeks per yr, not counting sick days) What is the result of this effort? Who's paying for it? Me? How come I don't see Managed Media reporting the work product? Did it really happen or was it a company paid picnic?

If what this MJTF was doing was legal I woulda thunk that they woulda talked it up.

Stealth law enforcement......Isn't that what the KGB used to do?

 

[KLR]

kbr80- I (obviously) don't have a huge problem with it. Just the checks, mind you, neighbors have no need to know that one is buying a firearm. In my job, I come across so many crimes that are committed because addresses are fudged/falsified, etc. Plus we (gun owners) are under assault because of the idiots that commit crimes with them. I currently have a case going where the bad guy (already a multiple felon) was committing crime X. We also found out that he had a bunch of straw-purchase guns (and seized them). I have insisted that come heck or high water, we aren't going to plea-bargain the felon in possession charges away. Prosecutor agrees, thankfully.

The constitution isn't a ticket to do whatever we want. With every right, there are responsibilities/restrictions. Certain types of speech are still prohibited. You cannot claim religious protection for sexually abusing children. That said, I don't see background checks as a huge burden on my 2nd amendment rights. (registration, however, ). I see verifying residency information (in a discrete fashion) as acceptable. As said above, asking my neighbors- whoa there, partner! That is a problem.

 

[kbr80]

That said, I don't see background checks as a huge burden on my 2nd amendment rights. (registration, however, ). I see verifying residency information (in a discrete fashion) as acceptable.

There is problem with that, IMO. Do the agencies doing the CHECKS destroy the information after a check? Do they catalog the info and make a list for future crimes in that area? We all remember the sniper stories of agents going to the doors of citizens with info and 4473's in hand to talk to them. I understand rights come with responsibility, but if you place a restriction on a right, it is no longer a right, it becomes a regulated privilege. I have a problem with what happened, resident checks are not right, and they are ripe for abuse and civil rights violations.

 

[KLR]

There is problem with that, IMO. Do the agencies doing the CHECKS destroy the information after a check? Do they catalog the info and make a list for future crimes in that area? We all remember the sniper stories of agents going to the doors of citizens with info and 4473's in hand to talk to them.

I don't know. I do know there is a prohibition on creating a de-facto national registry of firearms.

I understand rights come with responsibility, but if you place a restriction on a right, it is no longer a right, it becomes a regulated privilege.

I know I am parsing your words a bit, but how is that a restriction on your 2nd amendment rights? If anything, it would be a violation of your privacy, which, as Cropcirclewalker will point out, only exists in the "penumbra" .

 

[Double Maduro]

KLR,

I currently have a case going where the bad guy (already a multiple felon) was committing crime X. We also found out that he had a bunch of straw-purchase guns (and seized them). I have insisted that come heck or high water, we aren't going to plea-bargain the felon in possession charges away.

Isn't this elligible for federal trial?
Aren't the federal penalties sticter? Parole, plea bargaining etc. much tighter?

DM

 

[KLR]

DM-

Never said it wasn't federal. Take a look at my profile. I just used "plea-bargain" (a phrase typically used in state and local courts) rather than Rule 11 Plea Agreement.

 

[Kim]

Good grief. We have the ACLU and hundreds of city counsils passing a resolution and filing lawsuits agaist the government because they might go and look at your library records in the coarse of investigating possible terrorist activity. Here we have the Feds and STate police going to peoples homes to investigate if an address is correct on a form without ANY cause and some here just say OK. Mind you going to a government library and using government facilities is not a constitutional right but buying a firearms sure is. This was outragous,stupid and unnecessary. Where is the ACLU. When are we going to see the protestors. When is the National Association of Gun Show Peoples going to file a press release condeming this activity. How about a National Press Club Gripe speech. When is John Conyers going to call for a Resolution agaist this assault on the citizens civil rights. When is the NRA going to run a commercial about this showing the marking out of the second amendment or the tearing up of the BOR. Nope YOU WONT SEE ANY OF THESE THINGS.

 

[Double Maduro]

KLR,

Cool, I hope you put him away for a long time.

With most of the violent crime being done by repeat offenders, it is hard for many of us to understand why they keep being released.

DM

 

[kbr80]

I know I am parsing your words a bit, but how is that a restriction on your 2nd amendment rights?

"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State,
the right of the people to keep and bear Arms shall not be infringed."

That is what my right is. It does not say anything about resident checks, what area of town I live it. It does not say: "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms shall not be infringed, except for resident checks."

 

[KLR]

Cool, I hope you put him away for a long time.

Working on it!

With most of the violent crime being done by repeat offenders, it is hard for many of us to understand why they keep being released.

Well, part of the problem is that sentences aren't sequential. If you commit two crimes one with a 72 month sentence cap, and one with a 24 month cap, it doesn't equal 96 months for the two together. You are more likely to end up closer to the top end of the higher sentence. There are also enhancements for multiple crimes, but they still don't add as much as if you added all of the sentences together.

The issues with the justice system are numerous but it is still better than every other nation out there.

 

[cropcirclewalker]

Mr. KLR, just a clarification

I know I am parsing your words a bit, but how is that a restriction on your 2nd amendment rights? If anything, it would be a violation of your privacy, which, as Cropcirclewalker will point out, only exists in the "penumbra"

Powers to create alpahbet agencies reside somewhere in the penumbra.

Rights (non enumerated) are covered in amendment 9

Article [IX.]

The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

Then the amendment which prohibits .gov from dreaming up alphabet agencies resides in amendment 10

Article [X.]

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

That is the one that the penumbra makes moot

Somebody should make .gov employees pass a test about the constitution.

Oh, yes, I keep looking at your location........Is there some allergy that New Hampsherpers get when they move to the midwest?

 

[KLR]

Amendment I

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

There is a lot that is not stated above, yet they are not absolute rights.

 

[publius]

That said, I don't see background checks as a huge burden on my 2nd amendment rights. (registration, however, ). I see verifying residency information (in a discrete fashion) as acceptable.

It's easier to stop believing in those forms of gun control lite if you remember that they are going to accomplish nothing, other than wasting taxpayer dollars.

Look at the bad guy in your story (who makes me wonder what crime X was, anyway). Multiple felon, multiple guns. Just like every other multiple felon who wants multiple guns. We can pile up papers to the sky and send a discrete car past every lawful gun buyer's house, and still that would be true.

 

[JohnBT]

"it wasn't as sensational as they had hoped"

It was sensational enough that when called on it they promised not to do it again and didn't put up a fight.

I have a feeling the fallout from this is just starting.

John in Richmond
Member www.vcdl.org
NRA Life Member

 

[KLR]

Cropcirclewalker-

I was making a constitutional law joke. A SCOTUS decision on a topic we don't want to get into (starts with "abo"), said that the right to privacy existed in the penumbra. By invoking privacy rather than 2nd amendment, it got us to the penumbra.

Just to refresh your memory, you and I had the following exchange in the Drega thread (the >>'s indicate what I quoted you on):

>>Finally, there are 18 things that are allowed by the constitution that Congress can do. (Article 1 section 8) I don't know which agency you are in. Is it covered in Article 1 section 8? (postal service comes immediatly to mind)<<
It has been years since I took any constitutional law and I don't have a JD after my name. Most of the analysis I can find on the 10th amendment deals with restrictions on the federal government directing the states to do things (speed limits, etc). I haven't seen anything to indicate that there has been a successful challenge to the very existence of government agencies. Since SCOTUS hasn't seen fit to grant certiorari and rule against, say, social security, I find it hard to accept social security, medicare, etc. as unconstitutional. There could very well be challenges out there that I am unaware of.

Oh, the sniff is because I would rather be home than here.

Publius- not telling what the underlying crimes were. I don't reveal what agency I work for.

 

[Kim]

KLR----------Do some investigation on the net about how SS got past the USSC. It was a very planned way to make it constitutional. SS is not what you think it is. It was passed in two different laws that are not connected. They had found they could get another of the NEW DEAL legislation past the USSC this way. Kinda like they found the USSC would let them pass gun control under the guise of taxes.(NFA) That is also an interesting read. The Attorney General at the time knew it was unconstitutional to pass gun control so he came up with a tax law.

 

[DMF]

Look at the bad guy in your story (who makes me wonder what crime X was, anyway). Multiple felon, multiple guns. Just like every other multiple felon who wants multiple guns. We can pile up papers to the sky and send a discrete car past every lawful gun buyer's house, and still that would be true.

Why does everyone go back to this same ridiculous argument? Just because it's against the law for felons to possess firearms and ammunition, and some some still get them does not mean the law is ineffective. Murder is against the law, people still commit murder. Identity theft is against the law, people still commit ID theft. Etc, Etc, Etc. Are you proposing that because those acts are illegal, but some people still commit them that murder, ID theft, etc, should not be illegal?

No law, in and of itself prevents a crime. It exists so the crime can be punished if committed. Proper enforcement of the law is what helps prevent crime. Regarding felons in possession, I can tell you from experience, many felons will go to great lengths to avoid a felon in possession charge. They know the penalties are stiff, and they know in most federal districts the law is enforced. The law has a huge deterrant factor for felons.

 

[DMF]

Like I said over on GT, thanks dbrowne1 for getting those documents.

However, for all those who say this is proof of something - it is, but only that LE was working to investigate gun crimes, nothing more. I saw nothing in those documents that would support any allegations of "abuse" during that operation.

 

[cropcirclewalker]

Mr. KLR said......

The constitution isn't a ticket to do whatever we want. With every right, there are responsibilities/restrictions. Certain types of speech are still prohibited. You cannot claim religious protection for sexually abusing children.

This is not thread drift.

It needs to be repeated as often as necessary. The constitution is NOT about the people.

The constitution is an operating manual which empowers the Federal .gov to do a few things, which powers have been given up by the people to facilitate a union of sovereign states.

People get NO rights from the constitution. The people are BORN with all the rights they can imagine. The constitution was intended to be chains, a leash as it were on .gov to keep it from going awry.

Those chains have been broken. There is nothing in the constitution which authorizes even the existance of ATF, let alone background checks.

The intimidating tactics (deterrance by questioning) are wrong. ATF, once they got caught at it, have claimed (claimed) that they will cease. Even the ATF knows these "Residency Checks" are wrong.

Doing a background check is a power which belongs to the state, or the people.