ATF Project Gunrunner

I don't understand how the BATFE can just arbitrarily tell gun shops that they have to report people who purchase more than 2 rifles in a 5 day period.

I'm not necesarily against the law but in any other business the governement can't just do that. The police can't go to a car dealership and say - "You have to start reporting anyone who purchases more than 2 vehicles in 5 days."

Doesn't there have to be a law regarding that?

Also, how can they impose that on gun stores? The gun stores are supossed to do what? - eye-ball their paperwork every day at the close of business and try to match names with the preceeding 5 days?

I don't know what the profit on these weapons are but it would seem to be a relatively simple thing to do to just move 1 state north to make the purchases.

This seems to me to be an effort on the part of the BATFE to divert attention away from Fast and Furious and make it look like they're actually trying to track down criminals and not trying to bolster statistics for stricter gun control.

I totally don't understand this. BATFE has the power to make gun stores do this stuff with no law - no regulation?
 
I'm not necesarily against the law but in any other business the governement can't just do that. The police can't go to a car dealership and say - "You have to start reporting anyone who purchases more than 2 vehicles in 5 days."

Doesn't there have to be a law regarding that?
Click to expand...
For pistols, there is. It's 18 U.S.C. 923(g)(3)(B). There is no such provision for rifles, however.

Also, how can they impose that on gun stores? The gun stores are supossed to do what? - eye-ball their paperwork every day at the close of business and try to match names with the preceeding 5 days?
Click to expand...
Basically, yes. It's a hassle. As you mentioned, not all multiple gun purchases are done in the same sitting. So, if John Smith buys a gun from Tom on Monday morning, then Dick logs out the gun and files the form on Tuesday, there's a chance that Harry won't know it's a multiple sale when he's selling John a gun on the evening shift Thursday.

The form itself is a hassle, and it has to be mailed to the local sheriff as well. Of all the multiple handgun sale reports filed, very few of them are for anything suspicious. Anyone who knows about the law can simply spread their purchases out over multiple stores or a longer timeframe.
 
The NRA has stated they will sue if these new rules are imposed on firrearms dealers.

SOURCE

July 11, 2011

NRA: We'll sue over new reporting rule for multiple gun buys

The National Rifle Association is vowing to sue the Obama administration after it announced Monday that it will begin to require gun dealers in four border states to send reports to the government following multiple sales of some semi-automatic longarms.

<MORE>
Click to expand...
 
Melson has already said DOJ is obstructing, not just stonewalling. It'll be interesting to see if his July 13 "public appearance" statements are toned down or if DOJ tries to hold him back from repeating that. In any case, Issa has enough to move for contempt charges against Holder and DOJ.
Click to expand...
Congress has no authority to bring any criminal charges against anyone. All any member of Congress can do is refer potential charges to....DOJ.

If DOJ refuses to let Congress use an independent special prosecutor to investigate it'll look even more like obstruction and stonewalling. That'll be fodder during the elections. Especially if Mexico ups the ante by screaming for a full-scale investigation.
Click to expand...
DOJ has no need to "refuse to let Congress use an independent special prosecutor", because Congress doesn't have the authority to call for a special prosecutor in the first place. The law enabling this expired years ago. As I said above, criminal charges have to be referred to....DOJ.

The lid is coming off as evidenced by the Honduras angle. This negates any chance of this being "localized" to Phoenix, which in turn implicates much higher pay-grades to approve a national program that works with multiple international tentacles. The implication is that it involves State, DHS via Customs and perhaps the USCG along with the FBI.

The Tampa-Honduras program netted a "big fish" in September 2010, so it seems unlikely Holder and/or Asst. A.G. Lanny Breuer can claim "ignorance" of the program or its methods. Especially in light of their attempt to garner lots of media attention on it.

There are too many leaks in the ship to keep trying to tow it to shallower 2012 waters. There's the risk of an unseen torpedo from another whistleblower or another high-profile shooting with a Fast & Furious gun on our side of the border.
Click to expand...
These things are all true, but irrelevant if there is no prosecutorial body with the authority, jurisdiction, and motivation to pursue charges. The single prosecutorial body with the authority and jurisdiction to do so (DOJ) will never do so because of an irredeemable conflict of interest and the impotence of congressional oversight.

Yes...they are going to get away with it, and there's nothing anyone can do about it if the WH and DOJ choose to continue stonewalling and obstructing and are willing to absorb what limited heat might arise from the media. None of this is going to affect the support for the WH amongst its political base.
 
It seems like a potential PR hey day for BATFE if the NRA sues them over the request to report multiple weapons purchases, but I'm not sure BATFE is adept enough to take advantage of it. If they're as incompetent in the PR department as they are in other areas then they might not be able to take advantage of it. On the other hand, there are other groups that can make NRA look obstructionist and anti-law enforcement.
 
Congress has no authority to bring any criminal charges against anyone. All any member of Congress can do is refer potential charges to....DOJ.
Click to expand...

Not true. Congress may charge any civil officer of the United States (including the Attorney General and/or lower level DOJ staff) directly via impeachment. The House issues the charges and the Senate would hold the trial. Given how carefully Issa and Grassley have been proceeding (and working in concert), I wouldn't be too quick to dismiss that outcome.

And we need to be careful about confusing knowledge of Gunrunner with knowledge of gun walking. Gunrunner has been a program since 2006 and Fast and Furious was one of many of a subset of Gunwalker programs.

As for the NRA suing them, clearly the Administration wanted and expected that since the NRA had already informed them they would challenge the multiple sales requirement. The Administration appears to think this will help their narrative, though how they could think that I can't imagine.
 
Yes...they are going to get away with it, and there's nothing anyone can do about it if the WH and DOJ choose to continue stonewalling and obstructing and are willing to absorb what limited heat might arise from the media. None of this is going to affect the support for the WH amongst its political base.
Click to expand...
Could not the affected States Attorneys General (AZ, TX and FL) join together to bring this to DOJs front door via some "legal instrument"? ala 1st Amendment right to petition governmental redress of grievance?

Or is this too a moot point anymore? Should said "petition" be ignored, then could one safely say/assume the COTUS and/or BORs is dead and tyranny has taken hold with this administration; whether the tyranny thing is true or not the 1st Amendment, being blatently ignored might gather some media attention once they see their Ox being gored as not good for their business? (I think that started out as a question). Trashing both the 1st and the 2nd... should that occur... I obviously dunno, just asking myself how close this nation is to that point. :confused:
 
Bartholomew,

Impeachment is NOT a criminal proceeding. It is only a means of booting people from elective or appointed office and carries no further sanction than that. Further, it requires not just an impeachment vote in the House but a vote to convict in a Senate controlled by the WH's own party. It's a nonstarter and won't dissuade this administration in the slightest. The fact remains that there is absolutely no prosecutorial impediment to the WH and DOJ doing exactly what they want to do, laws be damned. There is no credible penalty they need worry about - and they know it, and are operating under that implicit understanding.
 
Last edited:
Impeachment is NOT a criminal proceeding. It is only a means of booting people from elective or appointed office and carries no further sanction than that.
Click to expand...

Impeachment disqualifies people from ever again working for the United States government or receiving pension and related benefits. In the case of DOJ staff, it would probably lead to disbarrment as well. It may not be a criminal sanction; but it isn't a slap on the wrist either.

Further, it requires not just an impeachment vote in the House but a vote to convict in a Senate controlled by the WH's own party.
Click to expand...

Yes. The Senate just convicted Judge Thomas Porteus in 2010 - and after the DOJ declined to bring charges against him no less. The vote was dramatically against him.

It's a nonstarter and won't dissuade this administration in the slightest.
Click to expand...

I disagree. I don't think the Administration wants an impeachment trial in the Senate (it would be only the 63rd such trial in our history). Basically, you would be forcing every Senator to stand up and make a guilty/not-guilty vote right before the 2012 elections - and the Democrats already have 20 seats of the 33 up in 2012. If they are willing to go to that length to save DOJ staffers when there is sufficient evidence to charge them with a crime, I would be more than happy to accomodate them.

The fact remains that there is absolutely no prosecutorial impediment to the WH and DOJ doing exactly what they want to do, laws be damned.
Click to expand...

Yes there is an impediment - time. At some point in the future, there is going to be a different Attorney General in the White House. A conspiracy to obstruct justice is a continuing crime and the statute of limitations on it does not start to run until the last act committed in furtherance of the conspiracy is committed. If crimes have been committed, the people involved will not be able to hide under the aegis of the current Attorney General forever - in fact, they'd probably be better off being convicted now while they might still be pardoned or receive a light sentence.
 
It will be interesting to see if Calderon gets on his pony and rides after anybody to hold them accountable. He and Obama are fellow travelers and he will have to consider the wishes of whichever cartel has paid him off to hassle their competition.

This thing could be a major dump on Obama if offering up Holder's head isn't done the right way. I dunno that Calderon wants to see that. Our porous border is very important to Calderon to help him avoid addressing economic opportunity and social problems in Mexico, among other things.

And as for Obama talking about his "under the radar" gun control efforts, I don't think he is bright enough to keep his mouth shut about a covert gun walking op, too good a story as it makes him sound like a secret agent man. He is worried, methinks, about his clear failures to deliver and lead. He will do anything to promote himself, even make hints about stuff that needs to be kept real quiet.

If F+F had worked as the savants predicted, the victory laps would be endless, as would be his claims to authorship.
 
Impeachment disqualifies people from ever again working for the United States government or receiving pension and related benefits. In the case of DOJ staff, it would probably lead to disbarrment as well. It may not be a criminal sanction; but it isn't a slap on the wrist either.
Click to expand...
The people running this show are playing for keeps...right now. They're not worried about not working for the government again - they're hard at work doing as much damage as possible as quickly as they can, especially now that this is in public and there's no longer any benefit from concealing their actions. Most of them are attorneys who will have no trouble whatsoever finding highly lucrative partnership offers from fancy law firms and lobbyist organizations.

Yes. The Senate just convicted Judge Thomas Porteus in 2010 - and after the DOJ declined to bring charges against him no less. The vote was dramatically against him.
Click to expand...
And that matters how, exactly? Are you really suggesting the Senate would treat a sitting President and U.S. Attorney General in the same manner?

I disagree. I don't think the Administration wants an impeachment trial in the Senate (it would be only the 63rd such trial in our history). Basically, you would be forcing every Senator to stand up and make a guilty/not-guilty vote right before the 2012 elections - and the Democrats already have 20 seats of the 33 up in 2012. If they are willing to go to that length to save DOJ staffers when there is sufficient evidence to charge them with a crime, I would be more than happy to accomodate them.
Click to expand...
First, I don't think they are worried about an impeachment trial, because they know the Republicans in the House don't have the stomach for that kind of fight. They tried and lost against Clinton (and lost HUGE counts of seats as a result), and are far too distracted by the national economic issues to invest significant political capital in pursuing impeachment charges on an issue most Americans simply do not understand.

Yes there is an impediment - time. At some point in the future, there is going to be a different Attorney General in the White House. A conspiracy to obstruct justice is a continuing crime and the statute of limitations on it does not start to run until the last act committed in furtherance of the conspiracy is committed. If crimes have been committed, the people involved will not be able to hide under the aegis of the current Attorney General forever - in fact, they'd probably be better off being convicted now while they might still be pardoned or receive a light sentence.
Click to expand...
Hardly. Not a one of the decision makers has anything whatsoever to worry about. You had better believe that before he leaves office, Obama will make sure each and every one of them has a bright, shiny new pardon in his pocket. They're not worried about any kind of sentence. Their only worries are how they're gonna spend all that money George Soros is going to make sure they receive once they leave their government jobs.
 
csmsss said:
Congress has no authority to bring any criminal charges against anyone. All any member of Congress can do is refer potential charges to....DOJ.
Click to expand...

Since this was an international crime, couldn't Interpol be pulled in? Interesting premise if it could work.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top