BSA, you seem like a nice guy. And I thank you for posting in the spirit you have. But I'm thinking your pure and innocent thought processes are the result of many years of working in such an agency. We are gun owners. A super high percentage of us, I repeat, an extrememly high percentage of us, are extremely law abiding citizens. Despite that fact, we have faced a lifetime of "gotcha leadership" from government regarding gun laws. I live in NY state. We have no shortage of gun laws, many of them proven to be ineffective, foolish, counterproductive, and designed solely to impress the ignorant. In other words, Sir, the issue has never been dealt with honestly. And now you ask why we honest citizens do not trust the main bureaucracy charged with administering those policies? Nothing personal, but you are part of the charade. The best thing a law abiding gun enjoying citizen can do is to avoid you altogether. Now if we were law breakers, seeking to avoid a harsh sentence and searching for loopholes, our lawyers would certainly give you a call. But the average Joe is best served by being as invisible as possible to an agency that serves one purpose only, that being to be a political pawn to the slugs and bureaucrats manipulating the system. And one last thing, we don't fear the BATF, or whatever the current fashionable name is. We just know what it is all about.
Why the fear of the BATF?
- Thread starter BSA1
- Start date
- Status
BSA1
While all of the above information is very good, the answer to your original question is very simple.
It comes down to trust. The sad truth is not many citizens trust our government or any branch of it.
Guilt by association BATF, FBI, CIA, IRS you name it there are many more.
I must say a lot of this mistrust is well earned by our government agencies.
While I personally or legally do not have any issues with my back ground.
I would never trust any government agency that I was not absolutely forced to trust.
While all of the above information is very good, the answer to your original question is very simple.
It comes down to trust. The sad truth is not many citizens trust our government or any branch of it.
Guilt by association BATF, FBI, CIA, IRS you name it there are many more.
I must say a lot of this mistrust is well earned by our government agencies.
While I personally or legally do not have any issues with my back ground.
I would never trust any government agency that I was not absolutely forced to trust.
Deanimator
Member
There's simply no chance of me trusting an organization that once produced an OFFICIAL training video on how to lie under oath.
Combine that with running guns into Mexico in order to justify another assault weapon ban, and I wouldn't trust that mob as far as I could throw Rosie O'Donnell and a boxcar full of bags of hammers.
RobNDenver
Member
- Joined
- Mar 23, 2008
- Messages
- 275
I think that is a rumor that has grown to urban legend over the years. Recently I purchased two suppressors and wanted to know how the form 4 was progressing. I called the BATFE at about 4 months and spoke to a very friendly person who explained that my applications had been received and were being worked. At six months (about the expected time) I called again and a friendly person told me that the forms were approved and mailed back to my dealer on such and such a date. Like the OP, I have found most government agencies bend over backwards to be nice to citizens who call and ask for help, or seek information.
Deanimator
Member
Who goes in front of Congress to apologize for "rumors" and "urban legends"?
archigos
Member
Some ATF agents are good people.
However, the ATF has refined its primary purpose to be the infringement of the 2nd Amendment. Why would I as a gun owner and freedom-loving American have any trust for them?
However, the ATF has refined its primary purpose to be the infringement of the 2nd Amendment. Why would I as a gun owner and freedom-loving American have any trust for them?
Cosmoline
Member
Contrary to the TV image of cops beating suspects up, they're actually pretty darn friendly when they're getting ready to put you in prison, too. That's where the lying part comes in. You may have to work with them, certainly. The law requires you to do so in certain circumstances. But tread with extreme caution. They may be friendly, but that does NOT mean they are your friends.
Carl N. Brown
Member
People have been prosecuted after following advice from ATF when the ATF person giving the advice gave bad information, that was followed in good faith and may have been given in good faith.
Federal prosecutors are very often more concerned with "wins" than in justice, and federal judges bend over backwards to give the benefit of the doubt to federal law enforcement. Read the court rulings in Ballew, Clifton v Cox and Idaho v Horiuchi.
Federal prosecutors are very often more concerned with "wins" than in justice, and federal judges bend over backwards to give the benefit of the doubt to federal law enforcement. Read the court rulings in Ballew, Clifton v Cox and Idaho v Horiuchi.
mgregg85
Member
I fear any government agency that has the power to bind and loose with almost no oversight. Look at what happened with the Akins accelerator, first the ATF boys said it was legal then changed their mind 2 years later and destroyed a man's business overnight. They even had the gall to round up all the legally sold accelerator stocks.
Does any other federal law enforcement agency get away with these shenanigans?
Does any other federal law enforcement agency get away with these shenanigans?
Really, lets see some citations from court cases where the person showed they acted in good faith on information provided by ATF and were prosecuted anyway.
Ballew, that's one of my favorites. So what's your problem with the prosecution of Ballew? The guy was making grenades, barricaded his door when LE tried to serve a warrant, then pointed an antique firearm (still capable of easily killing someone) at the officers/agents serving the warrant.
Before you go off half cocked about Ballew, you might want to research the FACTS. NOT what some fool with no interest in the truth wrote in his work of fiction ("Unintended Consequences"), but the actual facts.
Look forward to seeing what you have to offer about Ballew.
All of the concerns voiced regarding dealing with the ATF apply to any governmental regulatory agency. And they simply arise because the agencies job is not looking out for your interests. Their job is furthering the mission and interests of the agency and most efficiently administering the statutes and regulations within their purview. They are easier to understand when considered in those terms.
If a regulatory agency can help assure that someone with a question will follow and abide by the statutes and regulations the agency administers, the mission of the agency is being furthered. To promote that purpose, agency personnel will, in that context and within the limits of their knowledge, be helpful to persons with questions. But you need to be clear that's their purpose, not furthering your own interests.
Another thing to consider is that often when one calls an agency with a question, he may fail to provide all the information necessary to the agency to provide an accurate response. This often occurs because the person asking the question isn't thorough familiar with the statutes and regulations and may, therefore, not fully appreciate what information can be important.
If a regulatory agency can help assure that someone with a question will follow and abide by the statutes and regulations the agency administers, the mission of the agency is being furthered. To promote that purpose, agency personnel will, in that context and within the limits of their knowledge, be helpful to persons with questions. But you need to be clear that's their purpose, not furthering your own interests.
Another thing to consider is that often when one calls an agency with a question, he may fail to provide all the information necessary to the agency to provide an accurate response. This often occurs because the person asking the question isn't thorough familiar with the statutes and regulations and may, therefore, not fully appreciate what information can be important.
Anyone who doesn't trust the ATF is just being paranoid. The ATF always has our best interests in mind...like when they were helping uncle sam push for harsher weapons regulations by selling military grade weapons to cartels in Mexico and blaming US citizens and FFL dealers.
Mr Ettin, I don't think there is any agency, even the "well-respected" EPA, that has so justly earned its reputation as a politically driven machine. You cannot trust an agency that constantly adjusts its beliefs on which way the winds are blowing. They are driven by policies of the moment, not by law. Certainly not by the Constitution. That piece of drivel just gets in their way.
As far as their "interests". Their interests should be serviing us. They work for us. They should be concerned with helping people comply with the laws, not playing a constant game of gotcha and bait and switch. I realize you are using your last name. That makes a big difference in what people can say.
As far as their "interests". Their interests should be serviing us. They work for us. They should be concerned with helping people comply with the laws, not playing a constant game of gotcha and bait and switch. I realize you are using your last name. That makes a big difference in what people can say.
mr.trooper
Member
Gun nuts have a LONG history of xenophobia and paranoia.
Some of it is founded and some of it isn't.
Either way, it is a central part of out culture - so much that I just assume anyone who is a fellow gun nut is going to be an 'eccentric' persona and roll with it.
Some of it is founded and some of it isn't.
Either way, it is a central part of out culture - so much that I just assume anyone who is a fellow gun nut is going to be an 'eccentric' persona and roll with it.
OP
OP
BSA1
member
Whalerman,
Although your comments are meant to chide me I do not find the offensive. I learned through experience the folks from the Northeast look down on us here is the Midwest.
My original question has to do with contacting the BATF for help. I asked for documentation that a caller was added to a list to investigate, raid their home or otherwise harassed for contacting the BATF for help with what the law and regulations state?
No far no one has offered any documentation. The one link that was offered lacks any verification.
My follow up question concerns selling guns with my C&R license. The answers were somewhat vague and still leaves me in the dark. And since the profit is so small it is not worth me spending several hundred dollars to have a lawyer research it.
You then launched into your personal attack on me because as a former government worker I am put on some “charade” and “the best thing a law abiding gun enjoying citizen can do is to avoid you altogether.” I am not quite sure where to go with these statements.
What “charade” are you referring to? My belief that most government agencies and workers want to help citizens? I most certainly will confess to this. I believe as a Christian and in God that despite how bad things seem people are basically good.
When you say “the best thing a law abiding gun enjoying citizen can do is to avoid you altogether” are you saying that I am a illegal gun owner? Or unless I believe the way you do I should not be allowed to own a gun? Does this apply to your views on the BATF or all government or the world in general?
There is enough hate in America on talk radio and now on this thread. I profoundly regret the hate that it has generated. It is clear that this is too emotional of a subject for the information I seek. Moderator please shut it down.
Although your comments are meant to chide me I do not find the offensive. I learned through experience the folks from the Northeast look down on us here is the Midwest.
My original question has to do with contacting the BATF for help. I asked for documentation that a caller was added to a list to investigate, raid their home or otherwise harassed for contacting the BATF for help with what the law and regulations state?
No far no one has offered any documentation. The one link that was offered lacks any verification.
My follow up question concerns selling guns with my C&R license. The answers were somewhat vague and still leaves me in the dark. And since the profit is so small it is not worth me spending several hundred dollars to have a lawyer research it.
You then launched into your personal attack on me because as a former government worker I am put on some “charade” and “the best thing a law abiding gun enjoying citizen can do is to avoid you altogether.” I am not quite sure where to go with these statements.
What “charade” are you referring to? My belief that most government agencies and workers want to help citizens? I most certainly will confess to this. I believe as a Christian and in God that despite how bad things seem people are basically good.
When you say “the best thing a law abiding gun enjoying citizen can do is to avoid you altogether” are you saying that I am a illegal gun owner? Or unless I believe the way you do I should not be allowed to own a gun? Does this apply to your views on the BATF or all government or the world in general?
There is enough hate in America on talk radio and now on this thread. I profoundly regret the hate that it has generated. It is clear that this is too emotional of a subject for the information I seek. Moderator please shut it down.
A fairly typical emotion driven perspective on any governmental agency (whether the ATF, IRS, FDA, EPA, DEA, etc.) the activities of which interfere with one's interests and desires -- a perspective that is both common and counter-productive. It underscores another reason one can be well advised to use a lawyer when dealing with a governmental agency, at least if a lot is at stake. With a lawyer one gets, in addition to education, knowledge and skill, professional objectivity.
Bubbles
Member
You need a Type 01 FFL if you're buying guns specifically to resell.
Interesting history here:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bureau_of_Alcohol,_Tobacco,_Firearms_and_Explosives
So in addition to keeping the gov monopoly on the booze and smokes market free from competition, they spend a lot of time seperating honest citizens and their weapons.
Uncle Sam doesn't like it when you steal, he hates the competition.
Perhaps they should arrest the mayors of NY, Chicago and Detroit among many other places for the infringement of the constitutional rights of the citizens? Protect and serve? Isn't there an oath involved?
Nothing to be paranoid about, move along, nothing to see here.
BSA1, why is it you are asking us for information the BATFE could easily and cheerfully give you? They would be happy to cite the law for you, just as the IRS has been known to give 300 different answers to the exact same question. None of them binding, written or not.
So in addition to keeping the gov monopoly on the booze and smokes market free from competition, they spend a lot of time seperating honest citizens and their weapons.
Uncle Sam doesn't like it when you steal, he hates the competition.
Perhaps they should arrest the mayors of NY, Chicago and Detroit among many other places for the infringement of the constitutional rights of the citizens? Protect and serve? Isn't there an oath involved?
Nothing to be paranoid about, move along, nothing to see here.
BSA1, why is it you are asking us for information the BATFE could easily and cheerfully give you? They would be happy to cite the law for you, just as the IRS has been known to give 300 different answers to the exact same question. None of them binding, written or not.
Last edited:
Carl N. Brown
Member
Ballaw
My point was not the documentary accuracy of the fictionalized account of the Ballew case in Unintended Consequences .
My point was:
http://www.constitution.org/2ll/bardwell/ballew_v_us.txt Ballew v. U.S., 389 F. Supp. 47 (D. Md. 1975)
I have a download of the text of Clifton v. Cox, 549 F.2d 722 (9th Cir. 1977) but the link is not available to me right now.
Idaho v Horiuchi mentions Clifton v Cox also: http://caselaw.findlaw.com/us-9th-circuit/1430138.html
My sources on the Ballew Raid go back to 1971 through 1975. I did not even mention or cite Unintended Consequences (1996) in my post.
However, since one is looking forward to seeing what I have to offer about Ballew:
Ballew was not making hand grenades. Had no live grenades. He was a military veteran, he owned five dummy grenades as demilitarised souvenirs which did not contain explosive charges (see ATF FAQ on dummy grenades http://www.atf.gov/firearms/faq/national-firearms-act-firearms.html#dummy-ammo ). Three had been rigged to pop caps as noise makers. The ATF told the judge what Ballew could have done not what he actually had done: he could have plugged the hole in the practice grenade, he could have put gunpowder for his muzzleloader in the grenade, he could have put a cap in the firing mechanism, and the judge accepted their opinion, even though acknowledging that if Ballew had jury-rigged the grenade like that, it would have exploded in his hand as soon as the safety spoon was released.
The door that had furniture in front of it led to the utility corridor of the apartment; the furniture blocked entrance before the raid. If it hindered the entrance of the agents breaking down the backdoor, maybe they should have knocked and served the warrant at the front door allowing them to identify themselves as agents with a warrant. The agents wore street clothes and their reason given to the court was because it was a high crime neighborhood. Ballew claimed that he kept the back door barricaded because it was a high crime neighborhood, and when the backdoor was being broken down by persons unknown, he presumed it was a criminal break-in.
The original reports at the time claimed he fired first at the agents who were forced to return fire. The court ruling accurately notes that when ATF Agent Seals forced his way through the door, he saw Ballew standing nude pointing gun down the hallway:
My point was not the documentary accuracy of the fictionalized account of the Ballew case in Unintended Consequences .
My point was:
The court rulings I was referring to are:
http://www.constitution.org/2ll/bardwell/ballew_v_us.txt Ballew v. U.S., 389 F. Supp. 47 (D. Md. 1975)
I have a download of the text of Clifton v. Cox, 549 F.2d 722 (9th Cir. 1977) but the link is not available to me right now.
Idaho v Horiuchi mentions Clifton v Cox also: http://caselaw.findlaw.com/us-9th-circuit/1430138.html
My sources on the Ballew Raid go back to 1971 through 1975. I did not even mention or cite Unintended Consequences (1996) in my post.
However, since one is looking forward to seeing what I have to offer about Ballew:
Ballew was not making hand grenades. Had no live grenades. He was a military veteran, he owned five dummy grenades as demilitarised souvenirs which did not contain explosive charges (see ATF FAQ on dummy grenades http://www.atf.gov/firearms/faq/national-firearms-act-firearms.html#dummy-ammo ). Three had been rigged to pop caps as noise makers. The ATF told the judge what Ballew could have done not what he actually had done: he could have plugged the hole in the practice grenade, he could have put gunpowder for his muzzleloader in the grenade, he could have put a cap in the firing mechanism, and the judge accepted their opinion, even though acknowledging that if Ballew had jury-rigged the grenade like that, it would have exploded in his hand as soon as the safety spoon was released.
The door that had furniture in front of it led to the utility corridor of the apartment; the furniture blocked entrance before the raid. If it hindered the entrance of the agents breaking down the backdoor, maybe they should have knocked and served the warrant at the front door allowing them to identify themselves as agents with a warrant. The agents wore street clothes and their reason given to the court was because it was a high crime neighborhood. Ballew claimed that he kept the back door barricaded because it was a high crime neighborhood, and when the backdoor was being broken down by persons unknown, he presumed it was a criminal break-in.
The original reports at the time claimed he fired first at the agents who were forced to return fire. The court ruling accurately notes that when ATF Agent Seals forced his way through the door, he saw Ballew standing nude pointing gun down the hallway:
- Status