scheduled hearings were NOT broadcast, curious isn't it?

Status
Not open for further replies.

alan

Member
Joined
Dec 24, 2002
Messages
2,601
Location
sowest pa.
I went to the Judiciary Committee web site, which said that today's hearings on BATFE tactics/operations would be web cast. Got the following recorded message. "The program you are trying to view is not available. Please try later". Later brought replays of the above. When I phoned the House Judiciary Committee, as suggested by my congress peresons DC office,I was told that there were "technical problems", that were being "worked on", and that the broadcast would be aired. From same source, got the following later on, about 4 PM. The room used for today's hearings did not have web cast equipment. This seemed strange, as the hearings of 15 February were web cast. Of course, this agency and the agencies that came before it haven't fared all that well in congressional hearings, which might say something about today's broadcast or the lack thereof, but then perhaps not. In any case, it does seem somewhat strange to me, for whatever that might be worth.

I wonder what members of Judiciary Committee might have to say re the broadcast that wasn't.

ALERT FROM JEWS FOR THE PRESERVATION OF FIREARMS OWNERSHIP
America's Aggressive Civil Rights Organization

February 28, 2006

JPFO ALERT: WE WARNED YOU

In our past alerts concerning the BATFE Congressional
hearings ( http://www.jpfo.org/alert20060213.htm ), we told
you to keep your eyes open and watch for betrayal. Pay
attention to who defends or justifies the actions of the
BATFE. Look for "compromises" that only compromise YOUR
rights.

Not surprisingly, we were right to be concerned.

The hearings, originally scheduled for 2pm EST today, were
quietly rescheduled to 2:30pm. Additionally, the webcast
was dropped, although as of this writing, the link to it is
still on the Judiciary web site
( http://judiciary.house.gov/schedule.aspx ). Callers to
the Judiciary received the explanation that the hearing was
"...scheduled in a room that did not have webcast
equipment."

[We were also reassured that "...the Chairman supports the
Second Amendment." Of course, so does Charles Schumer (
http://www.jpfo.org/2nd-setup.htm ). The real question is,
"How MUCH does the Chairman support it?"]

Although the Judiciary promises that the written testimony
will be on the site
( http://judiciary.house.gov/oversight.aspx?ID=216 ) by 5pm
EST today, we will have no accurate record of what actually
transpired. The testimony, after all, was submitted earlier
and does not necessarily reflect the actual testimony. It
also does not cover the question and answer period
following the testimony.

Due to this "mishap", we have successfully been prevented
from seeing and hearing our government justify actions
which cannot ethically BE justified (it should be
fascinating to see if any alleged "pro-gun" groups try to
tell us what great friends we have in Congress!).

It's time to "Boot the BATFE," as well as anyone who would
dare defend this rogue agency. Go to
www.jpfo.org/bootbatfe.htm for more information.


- The Liberty Crew
 
Move along, citizen. Nothing to see here.
 

Attachments

  • Stopasking.jpg
    Stopasking.jpg
    47 KB · Views: 88
The finance committee hearings from yesterday were down too; I think it was a bad day for government websites. Nothing seemed to work today.
 
bad day for government websites

Well isn't that convienent?

You can watch that boring stuff everyday for years. Yet when something good comes up, all you get is a test pattern.

Poor guys, they work so hard day in and day out on antiquated equipment. A patch here, a patch there and the system still won't work.

Oh well maybe it will be up in time to see some pothole legislation earmarked for Puerto Rico.

Tough break.

Vick
 
You obviously weren't in a "free speech zone". Only those in designated "free speech zones" were permitted to view the hearings. I know I never leave home without my "free speech zone" bubble, and when I want to see or hear something that is “free speech zone” restricted – I simply inflate my bubble, climb inside and listen or view the restricted content. You should get a bubble – they’re available from your elected representative for the price of a sizeable campaign donation (generally five figures or more - and more is better).
 
Agents erred at gun shows, official says
But ATF defends its patrols at hearings on the Richmond events

BY SEAN MUSSENDEN
MEDIA GENERAL NEWS SERVICE
Wednesday, March 1, 2006


WASHINGTON -- Federal agents made mistakes while searching for illegal firearm sales at Richmond gun shows, a top federal law enforcement officer told congressional investigators yesterday.

But the official also defended aggressive gun-show patrols conducted by Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives agents and local police, saying that they had prevented violent criminals from buying weapons.

"We acknowledge that some techniques used in our Richmond operations were not implemented in a manner consistent with ATF's best practices," Michael Bouchard, assistant director of field operations for the agency, told the House judiciary subcommittee on crime.

"However, we, along with our law enforcement partners, feel very strongly that our efforts at Richmond gun shows have reduced violent crime and made the streets of Virginia and America safer," he said.

The subcommittee launched an investigation into police patrols at Richmond-area gun shows between 2004 and 2005 after attendees said officers harassed gun buyers. Show organizers complained about a large, visible police presence that, they said, scared away would-be buyers.

ATF agents set up a command post at the show, increasing the number of visible police officers on site. Bouchard said moving the post from show grounds was one of the things his agents could have done differently.

At a hearing two weeks ago, show organizers and attendees told the panel that police racially profiled gun buyers by targeting minorities. Bouchard called that allegation "totally false."

Show organizers also complained that their buyers were subjected to an unfair level of scrutiny. In several cases, ATF agents or officers with city, county or state police were dispatched to talk with a buyers' relatives or neighbors to confirm an address listed on background check forms.

Bouchard defended these residency checks as necessary to stopping illegal sales.

ATF said it polices about one in 50 gun shows nationally. But it began working with Richmond, Henrico County and Virginia State Police after firearms purchased at local shows were routinely linked to local crimes. About 400 guns purchased at Richmond shows were used in crimes between 2002 and 2005.

"There is a plague of violent crime in the city of Richmond," Richmond police Maj. David McCoy told the panel.

In some cases, police had a difficult time tracing guns to criminals because the buyer had listed a false address.

The false-address problem is not common nationwide, Bouchard said, but it was a particular problem at Richmond gun shows. He likened the practice to felons who scratch out the serial numbers on guns to mask their involvement in a crime.

"Word had gotten out on the street and criminals were using bad addresses. . . . So, we had to tailor our approach because we saw that as a significant problem," he said.

The 302 total residency checks conducted at Richmond shows between 2004 and 2005 turned up 47 people who had listed false addresses, he said.

Subcommittee chairman Rep. Howard Coble, R-N.C., said he appreciated that ATF officials had worked to keep guns out of the hands of criminals. But he called the aggressive tactics heavy-handed.

"It appears some mistakes were made . . . and hopefully they won't be repeated," Coble said.

Annette Gelles, the organizer of an August show at the Richmond Raceway Complex, told the panel in mid-February that regular customers stopped coming because of the stepped-up enforcement. Gelles said yesterday that she hoped the spotlight on ATF gun show operations will prevent agents from being so aggressive in the future.

"But I don't think just public attention alone is enough. I think Congress needs to do something to prevent this from happening again," she said in an interview.

Coble said he had not decided whether laws regarding ATF oversight of gun shows needed to be revised.


Sean Mussenden is a national correspondent in Media General's Washington bureau. E-mail him at [email protected]
 
"However, we, along with our law enforcement partners, feel very strongly that our efforts at Richmond gun shows have reduced violent crime and made the streets of Virginia and America safer," he said.
I don't care how you feel!:fire:

The 302 total residency checks conducted at Richmond shows between 2004 and 2005 turned up 47 people who had listed false addresses, he said.
And of those, how many were just a misunderstanding or a DL that had not yet been updated to properly register the citizen's residence?
 
"However, we, along with our law enforcement partners, feel very strongly that our efforts at Richmond gun shows have reduced violent crime and made the streets of Virginia and America safer," he said.

Where's the data to support this?

I didn't see this on tv - were those in the hearing carrying buckets of whitewash?
 
"We acknowledge that some techniques used in our Richmond operations were not implemented in a manner consistent with ATF's best practices," Michael Bouchard, assistant director of field operations for the agency, told the House judiciary subcommittee on crime.

Translation: Yes I know that we violated some people's rights, but after all, the ends justify the means. Bill of Rights??? What Bill of Rights?

"It appears some mistakes were made . . . and hopefully they won't be repeated," Coble said.

Unless of course you Congress-critters will let them get away with it. (as appears to be the case). :cuss:
 
r.h. lee, i like the fact that your public service announcement is from the 'ministry' of homeland security;)
 
blurb from cong lack of recording

from : http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/dailydigest fair use and all that jazz

Committee on the Judiciary, Subcommittee on Crime, Terrorism, and Homeland Security continued oversight hearings on the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (BATFE) Part 2: Gun Show Enforcement. Testimony was heard from Michael R. Bouchard, Assistant Director (Field Operations), Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives, Department of Justice; and public witnesses.

have contacted my rep and requested full transcripts asap.

I'll post as soon as it get them.



from Richmond paper fair use and all that jazz:

http://www.timesdispatch.com/servle...TD_BasicArticle&c=MGArticle&cid=1137834422596
oops, that had already been posted edit/deleted 10:57cst r
end snips

that's all I could dig up so far.
r
 
Last edited:
the first paragraph of brouchards statement had an eerily familiar ring to it.

"Yes, it was most likely illegal but look at the criminals we caught and the possible crimes we stopped. It was all for the good of the sheeple. "
 
I'm no Dectective, but I've seen Columbo on tv. It would seem that if you wanted to catch criminals, you would conduct the chase in a more covert manner.

By setting up shop in the open and flooding the area with gov agents and LEO's you spook the criminals. An honest person has the instinctive thought that he/she has nothing to hide and thinks nothing of it until its in your face.

This is open intimidation. They had no reason to ghost shoppers and asking questions, thats just intimidation, an effort to close down the show. If there is no show, then there would be no guns.

Not dotting an " i " or forgetting to crossing a " t " is a lie in todays legalese. Its grounds for prison because you made an attempt to deceive official government documents and officials.

However the gov agents can lie and its legal. Agents can step way outside the SOP and its legal. The individual citizen will be marginalized or minimized by the individuals hiding behind the government sheild of "Just doing my job".

I doubt there were actually criminals there at the show once they seen all the LEO's. If there were, they weren't buying guns. If they were buying guns, they are that stupid.
If they are that stupid, how many gov agents does it take to out think them?

Just my opinion wandering here,

Vick
 
Last edited:
"It appears some mistakes were made . . . and hopefully they won't be repeated," Coble said.

Yes, and that is all that will come of this event. A pious hope.

:fire:
 
I wish I could say this was unexpected, but the voices in my head are always right.

In a town full of busy people with tight schedules, rescheduling something at the last moment is the best way to make it dissapear into a black hole.
Having the video go missing is all the better, now people have to read reams of paper to find out what happend.

Unless you can get the news or a few politicians on your side for a full coverage do-over, its like it never took place.
 
At a hearing two weeks ago, show organizers and attendees told the panel that police racially profiled gun buyers by targeting minorities. Bouchard called that allegation "totally false."

Great, so all those folks wearing white bedding that used to carry bibles and shotguns traded them in for tacticool black, AR's, and a government paycheck. Typical. Somebody should tell the FBI they wasted a lot of time in the South.

"We acknowledge that some techniques used in our Richmond operations were not implemented in a manner consistent with ATF's best practices,"

Translation: with the local police around, we couldn't bottle-up everyone inside, bring in tanks, and use accelerants to burn the show down around their ears.

Thank goodness "best practices" weren't followed.
 
After-Action Report: ATF has last word, praises its conduct!

ATF Sees 'No Evidence of Misconduct' in Gun Show Stings
By Jeff Johnson
CNSNews.com Senior Staff Writer
March 01, 2006

Listen to G. Gordon Liddy’s interview with Jeff Johnson.

(CNSNews.com) - Federal agents did not use racial or sexual profiling during sting operations at gun shows in Richmond, Va., according to the official in charge of field operations for the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF).

Michael Bouchard, assistant director of field operations for the bureau, told members of Congress Tuesday that his agents broke no laws and violated no one's civil rights.

Bouchard told the House Judiciary Subcommittee on Crime, Terrorism and Homeland Security that ATF has conducted its own probe of the allegations, first reported by Cybercast News Service, and found no wrongdoing.

"Our internal review has shown no evidence of misconduct or any concerns reflecting negatively on the integrity of our agents or our [other law enforcement agency] partners," Bouchard said.


Bouchard also declared that accusations of racial and sex-based profiling leveled by show promoters, gun dealers and show attendees were "totally false.

"I listened to the allegations of racial profiling that were leveled against ATF and I can assure you they have no basis in fact," Bouchard said. "Our focus is on disrupting criminal activity without regard to the race [or] gender of those who appear to be engaged in unlawful acts."

As Cybercast News Service previously reported, numerous individuals claiming to be eye-witnesses or victims accused agents of targeting women, African-Americans and, in particular, African-American women for special scrutiny.

"If a woman showed up at my table, she was surrounded by law enforcement," said John White, a former law enforcement officer who now works as a gun dealer. "Every woman that makes a purchase, every woman who comes to my table to buy a gun was automatically [treated as] a 'straw purchaser.'"

A "straw purchaser" is an individual who can legally purchase a firearm, but who does so with the intent to illegally provide it to an ineligible buyer such as a convicted felon or an illegal alien. "Straw purchases" are illegal, and Bouchard said they had become a major problem at Richmond-area gun shows.

"ATF's presence was necessary because criminals have been using Richmond gun shows as a source of firearms for years," Bouchard said. "Between 2002 and 2005 more than 400 firearms sold by federally-licensed dealers -- also known as FFLs -- sold at Richmond gun shows were recovered in connection with criminal activity, including homicides. Of this total, more than 300 were recovered in the Richmond area alone."

ATF addresses specific complaints

Between May 2004 and Aug. 2005, city and county police officers acting under the direction of ATF agents conducted 302 "residency checks" on gun buyers who were awaiting the results of their background investigations at Richmond gun shows. Officers would go to the address the gun buyer listed on the ATF Form 4473 (Firearms Transaction Record Part I: Over-The-Counter), to determine whether the gun buyer really resided at that address.

Bouchard said the 302 checks reportedly conducted involved only eight percent of the total sales at the shows and yielded 47 "bogus addresses."

Some of the targets of those residency checks complained about officers informing their family members and even neighbors of their presence at the gun show and their plans to purchase a firearm. Rep. Louie Gohmert (R-Texas), a former prosecutor, asked Bouchard if it is "appropriate for an officer doing a residency check to knock on a neighbor's door and say, 'Your neighbor is buying a gun and I need to know if they actually live there?'

"Wouldn't it be more appropriate to say, 'We're just doing a background check and wondered if these people [live here],'" Gohmert asked, "without saying they're buying a gun or sharing any other information?"

Bouchard replied that some gun buyers' family members were falsely denying that the buyer lived at their address for reasons unrelated to the firearm purchase.

"That was giving us what we call 'false positives,' [because] they'd say 'No, he doesn't live here,'" Bouchard explained. "We would then stop the sale of that gun.

"So we, then, had to practice telling people, 'This is why we're here. We have no other concerns. We're not looking to do anything else,'" Bouchard continued. "We had the same response [from neighbors]. 'Why are you asking?' So we made it a standard practice just to tell them, 'They're looking to buy a firearm. We're trying to verify their residence.'"

Gohmert also asked Bouchard if the information contained on the state and federal forms gun buyers complete as part of the purchase is confidential.

"No, sir," Bouchard responded.


But, as Cybercast News Service previously reported, the federal law concerning the licensing of gun dealers appears to contradict Bouchard's claim. Title 18 Section 923 of the U.S. Code contains the following restrictions on the information collected during the process of a gun purchase:

"(g)(3)(B) Except in the case of forms and contents thereof regarding a purchaser who is prohibited by [federal law] from receipt of a firearm, the department of State police or State law enforcement agency or local law enforcement agency of the local jurisdiction shall not disclose any such form or the contents thereof to any person or entity, and shall destroy each such form and any record of the contents thereof no more than 20 days from the date such form is received."

Rep. Bobby Scott (D-Va.), who represents the Richmond area, pressed Bouchard about ATF's legal authority for the residency checks.

"It's a general investigative tool that we use," Bouchard responded. "There's no specific authority to do that."

The subcommittee learned that ATF agents confiscated 50 firearms that had been purchased at the gun shows and have since returned 15 of those. Ten remain unclaimed by their owners and the remaining guns are being held as evidence in criminal cases against the 25 people prosecuted as a result of the multi-year operation.

Bouchard conceded that those who had their guns confiscated were "probably not" told that they had the right to have an attorney present during the meeting and to refuse to answer agents' questions "because it was not a custodial situation.

"If they chose to bring counsel with them, but it was not going to be an arrest or a custodial situation," Bouchard said. "They were free to come and go as they pleased."

But ATF agents gave each person who had a firearm confiscated a letter explaining that the seizure was the result of an alleged violation of federal law. The letter informed the gun buyer when and where to meet with ATF officials to explain their purchase and threatened arrest if they did not appear.

Bouchard acknowledged, for the first time during Tuesday's hearing, that the letter is "meaningless.

"It's basically telling you when to come into our office to talk," Bouchard said. "You're not obligated to. If you don't show up there's not a darn thing we can do about it unless we're going to arrest you for the [alleged] crime for which we seized your gun."


Bouchard assured the congressmen that "ATF does not condone [the letter] and I've never seen it used before, nor will it ever be used again."

"What they should have done is given them a receipt and a business card instead of this letter," Bouchard said, "because this letter serves no purpose."

But Gohmert asked Bouchard how ATF justified confiscating guns from buyers - with or without the letter - prior to an arrest being made or a warrant being issued.

"If they had probable cause to believe that a 'straw purchase' had occurred ... they had probable cause to both arrest that person on the spot and seize that gun," Bouchard argued. "Because it was either on a roadside or in the middle of a gun show or a parking lot, they would seize the gun and tell the person [to come to the ATF office the next business day to defend the purchase]."

"So, basically, this was a probable cause 'arrest' of the gun?" Gohmert asked.

"It was a probable cause seizure of the gun," Bouchard acknowledged.

Gohmert confirmed to Cybercast News Service that law enforcement officers generally do not have the authority to seize private property without a warrant unless they are making an arrest and the property seized is evidence supporting the arrest. Since no arrests were made at the time of the gun seizures, Gohmert questioned their legality.

ATF didn't meet 'best practices'

Bouchard believes that the complaints from gun show promoters, vendors and attendees are the result of changing tactics to combat "straw purchases."

"We had changed our practices from reacting to straw purchases and, blatant 'straw purchases,' to more proactive," Bouchard said. "We would walk the floor and, if we saw blatant straw purchases, we would try and stop those before we occurred."

He acknowledged that "some techniques used in our Richmond operations were not implemented in a manner consistent with ATF's best practices.

"In this isolated incident, we have determined that we could have done better by having the law enforcement command post and briefings off-site of the gun show, and by not utilizing a letter to convey possible violations of laws when guns were taken into custody and by more thoroughly explaining the parameters for residence checks," Bouchard said.

Bouchard said ATF conducts such sting operations at approximately two percent of the more than 5,000 gun shows held throughout the nation each year.

"Except for the issues surrounding the Richmond gun show operations on August 13 and 14, 2005, we have not received any complaints regarding this important element of our firearms enforcement program," Bouchard said.

As Cybercast News Service reported in a Feb. 17 follow-up report, numerous individuals who attended gun shows in the Pittsburgh area claim to have been targeted by similar tactics.

Bouchard said that the number of guns bought from FFLs at Richmond gun shows later connected to crimes has been reduced as a result of the stings. The numbers were 156 in 2003, 129 in 2004 and 57 in 2005.

"Many of these same people had bought other guns that turned up in crimes," Bouchard said. "The word got around on the street that you could go to these shows, use a bogus address and, if you bought a gun, they couldn't trace it back to you."

Subcommittee Chairman Howard Coble (R-N.C.) described ATF's tactics as "heavy-handed," but expressed his satisfaction that Bouchard understood the severity of the claims. Rep. Steve Chabot (R-Ohio) said he wants more information about the individuals targeted for residency checks and gun confiscations to make sure that law-abiding citizens' rights are not being violated.
http://www.cnsnews.com/news/viewstory.asp?Page=\SpecialReports\archive\200603\SPE20060301a.html
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Probable result: ATF gets budget increase, agents promoted. Same old, same old...:fire:
 
I've commented in other threads/forums before: If this happens, watch the watchers! Videotape the BATFE agents, openly, obviously and gleefully. Ask for names, badge numbers, supervisors' names and phone numbers. Write info down. "Tag along" with the agents, noting who they interact with, and the nature of the interaction. Any discriminatory and/or unlawful acts should be documented, and you should advise the victims you'll be happy to testify in court (civil or criminal). Notify local law enforcement (any uniformed security, etc.) of your observation of harassing or unlawful activity.

This will make the wannabes at BATFE (they wannabe cops, but lack the guts to face down real criminals) extremely uncomfortable. They'll go away.
 
I sensed the ole sotfshoe shuffle going on here. Bureaucratic word blurring "probably not" informed of the right to have attorney? If the internal investigation was so complete and conclusive why is the term "probably" used?

I went to the Fresno gun show this last weekend and it was pretty well packed sunday. I didn't see anything out of the ordinary flea market type crowd. Lotsa gun handling, buying and selling. Didn't see any command post or obvious gov agents or squad cars hanging around. But I also don't really expect to see criminals at a gun show. Maybe I'm in tune with the criminal mind.

Anyone see anything like the Richmond debacle happening at your local gun shows?

Vick
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top