You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
ATF Project Gunrunner
- Thread starter Al Norris
- Start date
Bartholomew Roberts
Moderator
Another letter from Sen. Grassley on July 18th. You can read the contents at:
http://grassley.senate.gov/judiciar...Grassley-to-DOJ-Melson-interview-excerpts.pdf
There are some very interesting excerpts in there. Melson seems to be implying that the whole idiotic DOJ response to the original Congressional requests were basically just the political appointees at DOJ trying to get as far away from the scandal as possible, even if it ended up burning someone else or prevented the problem from being solved.
And conveniently, it appears Melson has identified certain key documents that fit the type of documents Congress has requested concerning Fast and Furious; but that DOJ has still not provided. Melson also helpfully pointed out that one still unreleased Memorandum of a key Fast and Furious meeting that took place on December 17, 2009, had been postdated (see Page 5 of Grassley July 18th letter) and that the Memorandum had really been drafted over a year AFTER the meeting in question. Sen. Grassley helpfully points out to AG Holder that this looks suspiciously like the DOJ may be trying to offer a different version of what happened at the meeting written long after the fact.
It would make for entertaining reading if the subject matter weren't so serious.
http://grassley.senate.gov/judiciar...Grassley-to-DOJ-Melson-interview-excerpts.pdf
There are some very interesting excerpts in there. Melson seems to be implying that the whole idiotic DOJ response to the original Congressional requests were basically just the political appointees at DOJ trying to get as far away from the scandal as possible, even if it ended up burning someone else or prevented the problem from being solved.
And conveniently, it appears Melson has identified certain key documents that fit the type of documents Congress has requested concerning Fast and Furious; but that DOJ has still not provided. Melson also helpfully pointed out that one still unreleased Memorandum of a key Fast and Furious meeting that took place on December 17, 2009, had been postdated (see Page 5 of Grassley July 18th letter) and that the Memorandum had really been drafted over a year AFTER the meeting in question. Sen. Grassley helpfully points out to AG Holder that this looks suspiciously like the DOJ may be trying to offer a different version of what happened at the meeting written long after the fact.
It would make for entertaining reading if the subject matter weren't so serious.
What a read. I guess the only thing now is to see the reaction from DOJ.
AD Melson should get some credit for at least talking like he wants the truth told and the problems corrected. If he was acting, give him an Oscar. If he was testifying truthfully, then give him the kudos he earned.
AD Melson should get some credit for at least talking like he wants the truth told and the problems corrected. If he was acting, give him an Oscar. If he was testifying truthfully, then give him the kudos he earned.
Uncle Buck
New member
You know someone (or quite a few people) are scratching their heads and wondering what else Melson told the committee.
That letter was a very nice way to tell the DOJ to stop sending BS responses, because we know what you have.
That letter was a very nice way to tell the DOJ to stop sending BS responses, because we know what you have.
publius42 wrote, in response to my question:
Alan,
They can continue as long as they continue to be elected and the taxpayers continue to not mind the wasted money on the losing lawsuits.
----------------------
In-so- far as it goes, point taken, however I find myself curious as to the following. In Heller, correct me if I'm wrong, The Court (USSC) ruled that there is an individual right to keep and bear arms, though they seem to have unfortunately couched what should have been a straight out ruling with lots of "lawyers talk", yes I know that the court is composed, perhaps unfortunatrely, of lawyers.
Notwithstanding this, it appears that existing and or newly enacted laws/ordinances in D.C. preclude the exercise of this right, since local laws/ordinances seem to block acquisition, and in order to exercise the above mentioned, recognized right to "keep and bear", one must have the right, the ability to legally acquire, a right or ability that, in D.C., seems conspicuous by its' absence. Curious, or so it appears to me.
Alan,
They can continue as long as they continue to be elected and the taxpayers continue to not mind the wasted money on the losing lawsuits.
----------------------
In-so- far as it goes, point taken, however I find myself curious as to the following. In Heller, correct me if I'm wrong, The Court (USSC) ruled that there is an individual right to keep and bear arms, though they seem to have unfortunately couched what should have been a straight out ruling with lots of "lawyers talk", yes I know that the court is composed, perhaps unfortunatrely, of lawyers.
Notwithstanding this, it appears that existing and or newly enacted laws/ordinances in D.C. preclude the exercise of this right, since local laws/ordinances seem to block acquisition, and in order to exercise the above mentioned, recognized right to "keep and bear", one must have the right, the ability to legally acquire, a right or ability that, in D.C., seems conspicuous by its' absence. Curious, or so it appears to me.
csmsss writes
Well, interesting you asked. Congress has no law enforcement authority of it's own. It refers pwpssible criminal acts for investigation to...
Wait for it...
The Department of Justice.
--------------------------------
Lacking law enforcement authority, The Congress retains what has been described as The Power of The Purse. Whether or not it has the intestinal fortitude to exercise that power could be, and perhaps is that often mentioned "different story". I suppose that we shall see.
Well, interesting you asked. Congress has no law enforcement authority of it's own. It refers pwpssible criminal acts for investigation to...
Wait for it...
The Department of Justice.
--------------------------------
Lacking law enforcement authority, The Congress retains what has been described as The Power of The Purse. Whether or not it has the intestinal fortitude to exercise that power could be, and perhaps is that often mentioned "different story". I suppose that we shall see.
Aguila Blanca
Staff
Federal law, to which even the District of Columbia is subject, recognizes (at least for purposes of firearms acquisition) dual residency. That is, if I live in St. Louis, MO, for most of the year but I OWN a vacation home in Taos, NM, during whatever periods of time I live in MY vacation home in Taos I am considered a resident of New Mexico and I can legally purchase firearms in New Mexico.
So what about time shares? A time share is like a condominium (or maybe a cooperative), is it not? If I buy into a time share, am I not an owner? So what's stopping an enterprising group from establishing a time share somewhere in the Poconos or western Pennsylvania, or western Virginia, conveniently close to a gun shop or three. Prospective DC gun buyers buy a share of time, go spend a week or two weeks at their vacation residence, buy the gun and legally bring it back to DC.
If they only want that gun ... they then sell their time share to the next prospective DC resident who wants to buy a gun.
So what about time shares? A time share is like a condominium (or maybe a cooperative), is it not? If I buy into a time share, am I not an owner? So what's stopping an enterprising group from establishing a time share somewhere in the Poconos or western Pennsylvania, or western Virginia, conveniently close to a gun shop or three. Prospective DC gun buyers buy a share of time, go spend a week or two weeks at their vacation residence, buy the gun and legally bring it back to DC.
If they only want that gun ... they then sell their time share to the next prospective DC resident who wants to buy a gun.
So what's stopping an enterprising group from establishing a time share somewhere in the Poconos or western Pennsylvania, or western Virginia, conveniently close to a gun shop or three. Prospective DC gun buyers buy a share of time, go spend a week or two weeks at their vacation residence, buy the gun and legally bring it back to DC.
Two weeks does not a residency make. Most laws are structured that one must spend 50% +1 day in the state to establish residency. In the case of more than two states, the state where you spend the most time is your state of residency.
You also have to contend with THIS.
Sec. 178.11 Meaning of terms.
* * * * *
State of residence. The State in which an individual resides. An
individual resides in a State if he or she is present in a State with
the intention of making a home in that State. If an individual is on
active duty as a member of the Armed Forces, the individual's State of
residence is the State in which his or her permanent duty station is
located. An alien who is legally in the United States shall be
considered to be a resident of a State only if the alien is residing in
the State and has resided in the State for a period of at least 90 days
prior to the date of sale or delivery of a firearm. The following are
examples that illustrate this definition:
Example 1. A maintains a home in State X. A travels to State Y
on a hunting, fishing, business, or other type of trip. A does not
become a resident of State Y by reason of such trip.
Example 2. A is a U.S. citizen and maintains a home in State X
and a home in State Y. A resides in State X except for weekends or
the summer months of the year and in State Y for the weekends or the
summer months of the year. During the time that A actually resides
in State X, A is a resident of State X, and during the time that A
actually resides in State Y, A is a resident of State Y.
Example 3. A, an alien, travels on vacation or on a business
trip to State X. Regardless of the length of time A spends in State
X, A does not have a State of residence in State X. This is because
A does not have a home in State X at which he has resided for at
least 90 days.
It will be kinda hard to present a valid state issued identification during the purchase of a firearm in a state where you only spend two weeks. It takes longer than that to get a new DL and temporary IDs are not valid..
Last edited:
Lacking law enforcement authority, The Congress retains what has been described as The Power of The Purse. Whether or not it has the intestinal fortitude to exercise that power could be, and perhaps is that often mentioned "different story". I suppose that we shall see.
Congress also has the statutory authority. This means that Congress can pass a law creating a special independent prosecutor to investigate the DOJ. Given the subject of the investigation, they can tailor the law to require the independent prosecutor to report to Congress or to a body within the judiciary for oversight. The executive might challenge it, but I suspect the judiciary would agree that executive branch oversight would be a major conflict of interest.
Contempt of Congress is a civil breach and treated as such in the courts. Congress has no law-enforcement powers of its own, but may sue other branches for failing to comply with constitutional requirements and hold those responsible up to a civil trial in a the public light. Multiple convictions of contempt (or other constitutional violations) can form the basis of solid evidence for impeachment (but is not a requirement, it just bolsters the case).
So what about time shares? A time share is like a condominium (or maybe a cooperative), is it not? If I buy into a time share, am I not an owner? So what's stopping an enterprising group from establishing a time share somewhere in the Poconos or western Pennsylvania, or western Virginia, conveniently close to a gun shop or three. Prospective DC gun buyers buy a share of time, go spend a week or two weeks at their vacation residence, buy the gun and legally bring it back to DC.
One would have to carefully study the proposition. While BATFE and the Federal authorities recognize "dual residency" -- such as a college student living away from home or a vacation home in another state -- the states involved may not recognize dual-residency (i.e. MA and CA do not).
In other words, if you're a D.C. resident and go to State X to reside in a condo for 2 months, State X may still require you prove that you are a bona fide resident of State X. "Resident" may be defined as being employed in the state and/or paying income taxes to the state and/or being resistered to vote in the State.
It's likely that if you live in NJ or MA and register to vote in TN so you can buy guns there, local MA or NJ law may strip you of your resident status. That could have other legal repercussions -- such as paying extra taxes for your kids to attend local schools. (the bureaucracy never ends).
Please take the discussion of residency requirements to a thread, such as Lane v. Holder, which is the exact nature of that case.
The now expired Independent Counsel Act and amendments were declared constitutional in Morrison v. Olson, 487 U.S. 654 (1988). I ran across it today in some research on an unrelated topic. IIRC, the Act allowed certain legislative leaders to ask the Attorney General to appoint independent counsel. The Attorney General was under no obligation to do so. Once the AG appointed the independent counsel, the AG could ask for removal for "good cause" subject to some judicial review. The independent counsel was not otherwise subject to control by the Executive Branch.Congress also has the statutory authority. This means that Congress can pass a law creating a special independent prosecutor to investigate the DOJ. Given the subject of the investigation, they can tailor the law to require the independent prosecutor to report to Congress or to a body within the judiciary for oversight. The executive might challenge it, but I suspect the judiciary would agree that executive branch oversight would be a major conflict of interest.
The Supreme Court held the Act did not violate separation of powers because the AG was under no obligation to appoint counsel and could remove counsel for good cause. Bottom line, I think it unlikely a true independent counsel could be appointed. What are the chances Eric Holder would do so? That's assuming Congress passed such a statute again.
Please take the discussion of residency requirements to a thread, such as Lane v. Holder, which is the exact nature of that case.
It is germane to the discussion on the potential case of DC vs Gura which was broached HERE. Should we do likewise with that as well? That has nothing to do with the Gunrunner / F&F scandal and takes it a bit off topic.
maestro pistolero
New member
Unless I missed something, it seemed off topic there, as well. If there are some dots to be connected, please help a brother out.It is germane to the discussion on the potential case of DC vs Gura which was broached HERE. Should we do likewise with that as well? That has nothing to do with the Gunrunner / F&F scandal and takes it a bit off topic.
Bartholomew Roberts
Moderator
Eghad said:The U.S Attorney attempted to take Carter's Country to a federal grand jury for straw purchases. The U.S. Attorney quietly dropped all charges and the egg off his face when he learned the ATF had authorized the purchases as part of the operation.
My understanding was that it was a local prosecutor who brought the charges. Do you have more details on this? I've been looking for information on the actual complaint and charges but haven't been able to find it.
It also seems important from the aspect of whether more "Fast and Furious" type programs were authorized. The U.S. Attorney's office in Phoenix was up to its neck in Fast and Furious. So it seems strange that a U.S. Attorney in Houston wouldn't be aware of Houston ATF programs - even if they didn't involve deliberate walking guns to Mexico.
2damnold4this
New member
I don't know about the actual complaint but here is a WaPo article:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/12/13/AR2010121305395.html
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/12/13/AR2010121305395.html