ATF director "steps down"

S

skizzums

New member
interesting.....leaving to persure a job in the "private sector". yeah right

this usually means one of three things..
1. scandal on the horizon
2. told to step down because he wouldn't twist the law enough to appease the higher ups
3. got caught with pants down

with the current climate in Washington, I am going to go with number 2. I am sure he was told to keep on pushing the bullet ban through no matter what kind of "facts" the people dig up. he either didn't want to, or couldn't figure out a way without a congressional hearing which could bring up other issues he would prefer to keep out of light. all speculation of course, we can't handle the truth.

what do you think, just tired of his cushy job, imposing restrictions on law abiding citizens, and wants to make more in "the private sector", or something a little more sinister? I understand the lie that he got caught in with the published ban during the "comments" period, but that's nothing to be too concerned about these days. it was a typo, right? enough said, back under the rug
 
It is, but this issue deserves its own thread.

Watching Jones testify at the Appropriations hearing, I saw a man who feels he's in over his head. Given the history and climate of the ATF, I can't imagine anyone wanting to take the job.

That said, I'm to understand Jones wants to go work for the NFL. Probably fewer macho ego conflicts there.

Thomas Brandon is stepping in as acting director. He oversaw a series of storefront stings in which ATF agents employed the mentally disabled to conduct illegal gun trafficking. In one case, the employees were convinced to get tattoos with the logo of the fake shop.

(While those employees were later convicted for the crimes they'd been coerced into committing, at least the judge ordered the ATF to pay for tattoo removal.)

In Pensacola and Atlanta, ATF agents offered such high prices for guns that thefts spiked. In the Atlanta operation ("ATL Blaze"), several weapons were stolen from police cars. The ATF bought them and neglected to tell local law enforcement the weapons had been recovered, which led to all sorts of trouble.

Brandon is also the guy who took over the Phoenix division after Fast & Furious broke. No criminal charges have ever been filed against the agents complicit in that, and to the best of my knowledge, nobody was even disciplined.

Jones was a bureaucrat; Brandon is an active participant.

The President will try to nominate him for permanent director. The best thing we can do is contact our elected officials and urge them to deny the confirmation.
 
so let's say he is gone. what does this mean for us in thenext two years. how bad CAN it get if the president appoints a very [anti-gun] director(sorry for my ignorance, but I assume it's an appointment). what's on the horizon for us and how much can they get pushed through the backdoor? it doesn't seem that there is any law that can be bent far enough for congress to actually do something about it, at the moment anyways, since they just seem to feel that EVERYTHING can wait until 2016 rather than fighting now. I see congress is pushing for an abolishment of the atf, just for show, when it'll obviously be veto'd regardless. [...] I am personally pretty worried by the whole thing, especially since his "step down" is barely a blurp in the news cycle. how far can the ATF go if they don't feel that LAWS or the CONSTTITUTION are standing in the way? how far can a state refuse to uphold federal laws that they feel unconstitutional if the ATF crosses that line? I think we can all agree that the 2nd amendment is a main object of disgust by the current administration[...]. if I am being too political, please let me know and i'll tone it down, but I don't think any of this is not fact anymore.
summary: how bad can this be for US?
 
Last edited by a moderator:
how bad CAN it get if the president appoints a very [anti-gun] director
Click to expand...
The President can't appoint a director. He can nominate one, and that nomination has to be confirmed by the Senate.

Our best course of action is to pressure our elected officials to keep that from happening. The ATF was without a permanent director from 2006-2013.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
that's what I was hoping for, another run w/o a director at all. I agree that is the best option, not just for the tw years, but maybe for eternity. although it keeps someone for being accountable, I think it also keeps personal agenda's from being fulfilled....to a degree
 
Tom Servo said:
The President will try to nominate him for permanent director. The best thing we can do is contact our elected officials and urge them to deny the confirmation.
Click to expand...

Is there really much of a difference in power with a Federal agency when someone is acting director instead of a permanent one?
 
Is there really much of a difference in power with a Federal agency when someone is acting director instead of a permanent one?
Click to expand...
None whatsoever. An acting head of any government agency has all the powers and authority of an appointed director.
 
Given the history and climate of the ATF, I can't imagine anyone wanting to take the job.
Click to expand...

I gotta agree.

For the most part, private sector jobs offer much more in compensation than government jobs, with less pressure and more stability. Seems in today's political climate, anything in the ATF will be under extreme scrutiny and every decision challenged, by one side or the other regardless of what it is.
 
The ATF was without a permanent director from 2006-2013
Click to expand...
Yeah this is actually the worst case. Obama just appoints a temporary director and never forces the appointee to g through vetting, at least not over the next two years. I am not sure if there is any way for congress to force the issue either. It sort of gives everyone a pass as there is no vote to be graded by NRA.


"more stability"
Government jobs are prety stable. Even if one division/agency/bureau takes a cut everyone is pretty much shuffled around to other positions. With retirement, benefits and everything else compensation doesn't lag as far as it may seem if you just compare the take home paycheck. At the level of director that take home paycheck is probably enough of a difference to cancel the rest though.
 
Anyway you look at it, I'll bet his income from this job after he leaves it will be higher than mine is while still working.
 
Both the BATFE regarding anything having to do with firearms, and the DOJ are, I suspect, rotten to their cores.

Otherwise, while every government agency has a director, male or female, how come the BATFE has a "permanent" director or is the English language, as applied to this particular government agency, somehow different?
 
SVO asks:
Has the ATF ever had a pro-gun Director?

-------------------------------------------------------------------------
I don't think so,though I could be wrong.
 
Don't know about pro-gun directors, but they had some pro-gun agents for sure. The one I worked with to get my FFL bent over backwards to cut through red tape as much as he could. Got my license quicker than most of my buddies, but it was all for naught, as Clinton enacted rules that caused suppliers to demand high-dollar purchases each time, forcing the little guys out of business. I was one.
 
My old neighbor was ATF - HE COULD NOT understand why anyone should own a gun :( . He looked down on gun owners.

Another neighbor was DEA. He was all for the 7th. :)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top