fast and loose with the law, ala The FBI

A

alan

New member
The following is a paragraph is a DIRECT QUOTE from a letter I received, dated 2 June 1999, from Mr. James E. Kessler Jr, Section chief, NICS Program Office, Criminal Justice information Services Division, FBI offices at Clarksburg, W.VA, in response to an e-mail I had sent to DOJ on 26 March, 1999. I had commented on, among other things, FBI operation of NICS, and the fact of their illegally keeping NICS data in their records.
"The law has never been interpreted by the FBI to mean that all reloevant information is p[urged from the system immediately after the processing is complete.The system that was dssigned and developed reflects this interpretation of the law. Modification of the NICS to utilize immediate purging of information would require a major system redesign".

One might now wonder as to what, in plain english, the above quote says. My take, others may come to different conclusions, is as follows:
1.The FBI never intended to operate the NICS as required by the law (Brady).
2. At this point, if required to obey the law, as are the rest of us, in effect, they are saying that they will need a whole lot of money, spelled taxpayer funds, to "fix" the program so that it might now operate, as it was originally supposed to operate, rather than the way The FBI designed it to operate.
3. Likely, The FBI did as ordered, threse orders coming from The Attorney General, though obvioiusly and ultimately from The White House, the home of non-feasance and mal-feasance not recently seen in this country.
4. The While House is the official home of an impeached President, whose administration is, and has been the seat of the above mentioned non-feasance and mal-feasance. At the same tome it fails to properly enforce existing law, it beats the drum for more laws, spelled restrictions on the law abiding, and obviously has instructed the FBI to violate the law.
5. The FBI is not completely innocent in this matter, for regarding "obeying orders", some Nazis made the same claim after World War 2. Their claim didn't fly, and neither would that of The FBI.

What do readers think?

Alan
 
What recourse do we have when the government breaks the law? Who can prosecute the DOJ? Can we vote the FBI out of office? Who do they answer to?

------------------
To be or not to be-that is the question: Whether 'tis nobler in the mind to suffer the slings and arrows of outrageous fortune or to take arms against a sea of troubles and by opposing end them.
 
If they cant operate NICS as the law specifies, they should be forced to shut it down. Tell him that and then tell your Senators and representative.

------------------
Better days to be,

Ed
 
I would suggest that every one of us type out the original message and attach it to the voting record of their representative as noted on the GOA Vote record-106th Congress House. High light your reps vote on the gun issues make your point that you want no more and show them why with the above information.
Hopefully, it will send two messages l. you are paying attention. 2. they are not minding the business of the people according to their oath. http://www.gunowners.org/106hvote.htm
------------------
John L. McKenney



[This message has been edited by Gunfounder (edited June 27, 1999).]
 
Attention: Walkin'Man, Gunfounder and Ed Brunner

Thank you for the thoughts. For myself, I have been fighting this battle since about 1963, maybe I haven't done a particularly good job, looking at the progression of things, but one tries. Part of the answer lies in the fact that these bureaucrats are maybe answerable to our "elected things" but only if enough hell is raised, perhaps not even then. The suggestioin offered by Gunfounder seems to have merit, as perhaps our "elected things" could be shamed into carrying out their oaths of office, maybe. Talking to the FBI is, analageous to, pardon my french, pissing into the wind, but it is sometimes fun anyhow. Personally, I intend to post the quote, and my comments thereon to as many sites as I can find. Perhaps some good will come of it. In any event, I bought this fool thing, and I intend to use it. I have already sent it to my senators. Thanks again for your kindness.

Alan
 
The GOA or the NRA or the LEAA should file a 'writ of mandibus' which asks a judge to force an entity to obey the law, if they do not , then he finds them in contempt of court and can have the Chief Operating Officer jailed until they comply or make satisfactory arrangements with the judge for complying. Any individual can do it with a lawyer if they have enough money!

Now of course , with the recent habits of federal judges, they might very well turn them away laughing.... but that is the law as it is written. Maybe the Fed Judge in TX ???

We also need a champion of T18,Ch13,Sec 241... conspiracy against rights, but that may be hard to find too. It seems strange though , because it is obviously being done on a regular basis.

" If the representatives of the people betray their constituents there is then no resource left but in that original right of self defense, which is paramount to all positive forms of government..." A Hamilton 1787

Judges are our indirect representatives of the law. They must be made accountable !!!

------------------
What part of "INFRINGED" don't they understand?
 
If NICS was legit, the dreaded yellow form and waiting periods would be abolished. An FFL would only require something like a name, address, and social security/drivers license number inputted to run a proper background check. Period. This would serve the legitimate purpose of screening potential gun buyers and insure that relavant (and private) gun data not be provided in conjunction with the check. The gun seller would provide a receipt to the seller, as any other merchant would, and that would be the end of it. The purchaser would have passed the background check, and therefore allowed to leave the store (or gun show) with his/her newly purchased personal property.

The yellow form along with the NICS input results in data compilation about the gunowner and gun. This is nothing but registration. Expanding upon the registration system by including private sellers to purchasers at gun shows is what the latest debate was all about, not checking criminal backgrounds.

We are all innocent law abiding citizens until proven otherwise in a court of law. No free American citizen should be assumed guilty before due process. Read you Constitution again!!!
 
Attention: Paul Revere

If you are aksing me if the NICS is legitimate, I doubt that it is. In any case, even if it is, neither the FBI nor The Clinton Administration are. DOJ is obviiously included with respect to illigitimacy, above mentioned. Take another look at your own post, wherein you made mention of the use of Social Security Numbers, talk of the establishment of registration, I had thought that you were addressing purchase of a firearm, not filing for ss benefits, the ONLY legitimate use of the ss number, as I see the thing.

I would hope that you have been able to bring your thoughts to the attention of your "elected things" Thank you for the feedback.

Alan
 
Alan...

You're right about the social security number. It is in fact a federal identification number. But I used it as an example to stress a point about what would define a legitimate background check. If you'd like me to restate my position using only Constitutionallly acceptable jargon, I'd have to say that private property is private property, and the purchase thereof is none of anybody's business. Nix the NICS and the social security numba.
 
Alan,
Would it be too much trouble for you to post the entire letter? There's a few people I'd like to talk with about it...

E-mailing it to me would be fine too.

Thanks
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top