ATF, Virginia Police Accused of 'Persecuting' Gun Shows

[DMF]

Regarding the Constitutionality of Fed LE agencies, I suggest reading this discussion: http://thehighroad.org/showthread.php?t=135122&highlight=publius

You will notice publius makes some interesting arguments, but quickly gives up on arguing whether the existence of fed LE is un-Constitutional, and moves to arguing whether specific laws are un-Constitutional. Which was originally my point:

Post 12:
We can debate all day long whether certain laws are or are not Constitutional, (all though Article III really gives that power to the Court, and Article V gives us the power to change that) however there is NOTHING in the Constitution, which prohibits the federal government from enforcing the laws it passes. If Congress passes the law, and it withstands review by the courts, then the federal government is able to enforce it. If you want to change that, I again refer you to Article V of the Constitution.

Later from publius:

Post 18:
Obviously, they have the power to enforce any law they have the power to pass.

Please read the whole thread as publius, myself, and others had a great deal to say on the subject.

 

[Kim]

DMF--------are the FEDS just investigating terrorist crimes when they may ask for library records. What crimes were these police agencies investigating. What information did they have that a crime had been committed. Or were they just fishing. I really do not want police on my property fishing for a crime.

 

[dbrowne1]

How come no news in the local paper about any arrests?

I have no idea - you should perhaps ask the Richmond Times-Dispatch or the Henrico Citizen that question. I have all the arrest/charge stats for each of the prior operations, which came with my FOIA request. There were arrests made at each show for various crimes. Unless the VSP just made it all up.

I can tell you that arrest info is available online in both Henrico and City of Richmond, at their respective government websites. Based on that info, it would seem impossible to cover every arrest made, as there are dozens of them on a daily basis. You're talking about a metro area with probably close to or more than a million people.

 

[cropcirclewalker]

Ha, Ha, Mr. DMF, you made me look

Ok, I read the whole string. Post #23 tack drove the nail on it's head.

You lost the argument.

You further double click verified my assertion that the chains binding .gov have been broken.

I can see in my mind, George Washington, the president at the time, riding out at the head of a called up militia back in 1794 to go and quell the "Whiskey Rebellion" which you used in your arguments.

Better luck next time.

 

[cropcirclewalker]

Mr. dbrowne1, thanks for the hint

So I googled Henrico County VA arrest records and came up with a link

http://randolph.co.henrico.va.us/publicdb/searcharrest.asp

I don't know if the above link will take you directly to what I got, but I searched for 08/14/2005 to 08/16/2005
Weapons category (1500)
0 Unknown type of crime: No Records Found
2660 All Federal Violations: No Records Found

 

[KLR]

Cropcirclewalker:

Ok, I read the whole string. Post #23 tack drove the nail on it's head.

You lost the argument.

that post by tyme reads:

DMF, let me see if I've got this straight...

If Congress passes, the President signs, and the courts refuse to review or review and find a piece of legislation constitutional, that legislation is constitutional?

If Congress passes, the President signs, and the courts review and find a piece of legislation unconstitutional, that legislation is unconstitutional?

Pretty Much.

The Founders were clear that they believed any government, even their newly formed government, could run off its tracks and become tyrannical even while following proper procedures. You effectively ignore this concern.

Founders created a government of checks and balances in order to avoid abuses. The phrase "More Perfect Union" refers to a government with all of it's requisite parts. Had they felt that ANY government could completely run off it's tracks they probably would have included a doomsday provision to chuck the whole thing i.e. right to armed rebellion. They did not.

To consider all legislation constitutional if it's passed and found constitutional by the Courts is to say that the Constitution only places procedural limitations on the government. What gives you the right to decide that the Constitution's procedural limitations must be followed, but not the substantive limitations (limitations on power to those abilities specifically granted)?

DMF was not determining those limitations. The govt. set up by the constitution is.

You would have no problem with reinstitution of slavery as long as the three branches were complicit? What about legislation reinstituting the prohibition without repassage of the 18th amendment? If Congress were to vote itself a retroactive pay raise and the Courts did nothing, would that be constitutional? How flagrantly does the text of the Constitution have to be violated before you stand up and reject what's going on as unconstitutional regardless of what the Courts say? Or would you wait until the Guardians are going house to house arresting people who post to THR? At that point, would you turn yourself in, or would you go into hiding while writing in to your newly-government-controlled local newspaper, explaining anonymously to others the error of your ways and encouraging them to obey the new government?

Stupid example. So, what are the alternatives to SCOTUS review and/or amendment? Rebellion? Where is replacing the government by insurrection covered? Must have missed that article.

Cropcirclewalker:
You profess to love the constitution but base your argument on a post that gave situations in which the only alternative for change would be actions outside of the process in the constitution.

Look, the constitution defines how constitutionality is determined. Period. We can disagree on the wisdom of those decisions, but that doesn't change what the constituion says.

My advice:
Embrace the pain, spank your inner moppet, but get over it.

 

[cropcirclewalker]

Mr. KLR, I yam sure that Mr. tyme would be happy to read what you said about his example. Not very High Road.

It is becoming clear to me that you terminally afflicted with blind obediance to the state. Maybe your alegiance would change with a RIF, who knows?

If you are unable to see that the chains are busted then there is nothing I can do to help you. You do, however provide me with the board upon which to bounce my statements. Maybe some of the rest of them out there reading this will recognize the truth, so all is not lost.

Thank you.

I am unfamiliar with the "inner moppet" jargon. If it's the same thing as a monkey Art's gramma would be frowning.

 

[KLR]

If you look up the inner moppet quote, you will find it comes from the character Cordelia on Buffy the Vampire Slayer.

 

[CARRY'IN]

Your employer and the address of said employer are requested, at which point the employer will be contacted and asked if it's okay for you to own a gun.

Oh, that is not right at all. I didnt know they did that. That has GOT to be way freakin illegal and if that really happened then those feds need to be punished severely. Scary Scary stuff.

 

[publius]

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?

Comparing laws against murder to the "necessity" for background and residency checks on gun buyers seems a little far fetched to me. I'm proposing that we not bother sending out a cop to check out the residency of gun buyers, because I think it costs a lot of money and is likely to yield little in the way of useful results.

Maybe the law deters felons from owning firearms, or at least from getting caught with them, but there sure seem to be a lot of them out there with guns.

You will notice publius makes some interesting arguments, but quickly gives up on arguing whether the existence of fed LE is un-Constitutional

I never argued any such thing. I've argued that specific agencies (notably ATF and DEA) are enforcing unconstitutional laws, but I've never argued that the feds couldn't have an enforcement arm for, say, customs laws.

You tend to give up these discussions before answering my main question on the issue: do you agree more with Scalia or Thomas?

 

[DMF]

You tend to give up these discussions before answering my main question on the issue: do you agree more with Scalia or Thomas?

No you just don't like my answer. From the aforementioned thread:

Your sloppy attempts at baiting me are ridiculous. Read the Constitution.

Then there is this:

I never argued any such thing.

Post number 4 of the aforementioned thread shows that to be different. You know the one where you said Customs was created to regulate interstate commerce.

 

[KLR]

Carry'in, you wrote:

Quote:
Your employer and the address of said employer are requested, at which point the employer will be contacted and asked if it's okay for you to own a gun.

Oh, that is not right at all. I didnt know they did that. That has GOT to be way freakin illegal and if that really happened then those feds need to be punished severely. Scary Scary stuff.

If you go back, the poster you quoted was talking about the lunacy that rears it's head when you try to buy a firearm in New Jersey (I have heard stories :banghead: ). That post had nothing to do with the gun show.

Your post makes it seem (I may be wrong) that you are linking the two issues.

 

[KLR]

Cropcirclewalker:

I would be happy to engage tyme on his argument. Personally I think he has found what could potentially be a hole in our system and confuses what is best described as the letter of the law vs. the intent. I doubt the founders ever intended the bill of rights to be overturned by the amendment process. Could it theoretically happen? Perhaps. Just as a return to slavery would be morally reprehensible, but by definition, if somehow the amendment process led to it, it would, by definition, be constitutional. Wrong and evil, but constitutional.

The scenario he creates (slavery) is only slighly more likely than enough states (three fourths) signing on to amend the constitution to read that Lord Moonbat of planet Zylon is our one true deity.

 

[cropcirclewalker]

Cheese, I was awaiting some kind of response to Publius' question. Now, I guess I gotta go read the constitution.

I was expecting the answer to be Scalia (since his was the majority)

Hey, how about the Kelo ? decision, you know the eminent domain case?

Did they do that one right too?

I gotta go ride my bicycle.

 

[CARRY'IN]

the poster you quoted was talking about the lunacy that rears it's head when you try to buy a firearm in New Jersey (I have heard stories ). That post had nothing to do with the gun show.

Sorry.

 

[publius]

Post number 4 of the aforementioned thread shows that to be different. You know the one where you said Customs was created to regulate interstate commerce.

Huh? Is this some kind of sloppy attempt at baiting?
I said (well, actually, Article 1 Section 8 said):

Congress has the power to regulate commerce among the states, with foreign nations, and with Indian tribes. They're going to need regulators to regulate, so they created the US Customs Service.

"Read the Constitution" is no more an answer to my question about two different SCOTUS opinions than "Read the Bible" is. Which one do you think the Constitution supports? Which one do you think Madison intended when he wrote it?

The powers delegated by the proposed Constitution to the federal government are few and defined. Those which are to remain in the State governments are numerous and indefinite. The former will be exercised principally on external objects, as war, peace, negotiation, and foreign commerce; with which last the power of taxation will, for the most part, be connected. The powers reserved to the several States will extend to all the objects which, in the ordinary course of affairs, concern the lives, liberties, and properties of the people, and the internal order, improvement, and prosperity of the State.

 

[KLR]

CARRY'IN: just be glad you don't live in NJ. Oddly enough, I think CA is easier when it comes to obtaining firearms. You have more restrictions on what you can have, but it is a pain in the rump to even get granted permission to own them in NJ.

No personal experience with NJ, but a good friend has.

 

[spartacus2002]

And yet another thread is trashed by "you said"// "no YOU said" that could be taken care of via PMs....

 

[KLR]

Well Spartacus- you can either PM the folks who you think are out of line and give them a good comeuppance, or become a moderator.

I personally have no problem with airing these issues in this manner. You also have the option of adding DMF, Cropcirclewalker, me, and anyone else you desire to your ignore list.

Isn't this your first post in the thread? How are you contributing, other than expressing your displeasure with the rest of us?

 

[publius]

Had they felt that ANY government could completely run off it's tracks they probably would have included a doomsday provision to chuck the whole thing i.e. right to armed rebellion. They did not.

I thought that's what the 2nd amendment was about. They certainly felt they had a right to armed rebellion, and they exercised it. Why would Jefferson say something like this:

“Rightful liberty is unobstructed action according to our will within limits drawn around us by the equal rights of others. I do not add ‘within the limits of the law’ because law is often but the tyrant’s will, and always so when it violates the rights of the individual.” Thomas Jefferson

 

[KLR]

Publius-

When did Jefferson write that?

Wasn't Jefferson serving as the Ambassador to France during the convention?

The second amendment might have been looked at in the way you describe.

I am not saying that you are doing so, however: I find it odd to simultaneously bemoan perceived violations of the constitution while saying that the system laid out in the constitution is flawed because it could produce a bad result. I am also not hearing any alternatives. Assuming 3/4 of the states signed on to a return to slavery, then what? I am sorry to say that the alternative is a government change not covered in the constitution.

We had to destroy the village to save it.

 

[publius]

I'll have to look up the Jefferson citation. I just got that from my little collection. In any case, the 2nd most definitely WAS looked at as enabling armed rebellion against the feds. Over and over in the Federalist Papers you can find references to the superiority of the militias to any possible federal force, and how that was a necessary check on federal power. Hamilton in particular was big on that idea.

I find it odd to simultaneously bemoan perceived violations of the constitution while saying that the system laid out in the constitution is flawed because it could produce a bad result. I am also not hearing any alternatives.

You've missed my argument, which is that some of the results by the Court have been flawed, and have not followed the intent of the founders. For example, in my opinion, Wickard vs Filburn, and later, Gonzalez vs Raich. On that latter one, I tend to agree more with Thomas than the liberal 4 and Scalia. How about yourself? Got an opinion on that one?

Want an alternative? Vote for politicians who will appoint judges who will hold the government to its constitutional limits.

 

[KLR]

Publius-

Tough call. I can see both sides (I should after reading each 3 times). Looking globally- can a purely intrastate medical MJ industry effect interstate commerce? I am inclined to think yes, it can. Regardless of whether you think interstate regulation of narcotics is allowable, having both present in state could create significant enforcement problems. It could create a market of diverting medical MJ out of the state, etc.

Again, we aren't looking solely at the case in question. We are looking at the overall effect of medical MJ.

Is the majority decision a stretch of Necessary and Proper? - seems like.

 

[Preacherman]

If we could please stop the thread drift and get back to the point under discussion...

I think that an address check, conducted in a proper manner, is nothing to be worried about, and is certainly permissible under the law. However, the way in which these checks were allegedly performed, with agents and/or police officers going to neighbor's homes and employers, and revealing the fact that the person concerned was buying a firearm, is - if true - clearly a breach of Federal laws and regulations, as well as a breach of one's right to privacy. If such allegations can be proved, I think that criminal prosecution and civil suits should follow. I would certainly launch such a suit myself, if I found that anyone had conducted themselves in this way about me.

BTW, KLR, welcome to THR! (How's that for initials? ). Being a Fed myself (BOP - more initials!), it's good to have you on board.

 

[Cacique500]

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.

...and by the way, can we PLEASE keep this on topic? If you want to debate the Constitution please start another thread!