Merry Christmas the BATF's in trouble.

Does anyone else have a problem with poor HTML rendering from the NationalCCW page? I have the same problem on two machines with two different IE versions. There's text on top of text, making the page almost unreadable. Is it just me?
 
JimR, I am using IE5.01 and I can read the pages just Jim Dandy. LOL

------------------
Ne Conjuge Nobiscum
"If there be treachery, let there be jehad!"
 
Wishful thinking at best. The regulation of firearms is not something which will be left unattended. While the BATF may be a poor second cousin within the ranks of Federal Law Enforcement (that's why they're on the bottom of the Treasury Food Chain), the greater evil may be to saddle the more efficient FBI with their task.

The key is enforcement focus. ATF should pursue illegal use of guns (like drug dealers in bad neighborhoods) and not trying to entrap the honest gun dealer or the average Joe). Instead of the easy-chicken sh-t busts (like somebody with evil features on their AR). go after those guys who are using their guns to blast their fellow criminals into oblivion.

------------------
Vigilantibus et non dormientibus jura subveniunt
 
Gary,
I agree with you 100%. But every LEO can tell you, "We only enforce the laws. We don't make 'em!"

The trouble starts with our elitist legislators who all belong to the same party. I know this is tired rhetoric, but until we replace the Republocrats in power we will continue to get more and more of the same.

Oh, MC/HNY 2U2! :D
 
Gary, why would teh BATF go after the real bad guys with guns, they can get hurt that way. It makes better TV to show a bust of Joe Guncollector with a bunch of collectables than it is to take down some scumbag that has one illegal firearm. Since Joe Guncollector is not going to shoot a lot of holes the agents making the raid.



------------------
Ne Conjuge Nobiscum
"If there be treachery, let there be jehad!"
 
Jim and Dennis, you guys are both right. Elitist politicians who give orders and chickensh-t administrators who want safe and easy high publicity busts where they can fill a table with guns. Let them go to after the gangbangers in East Palo Alto, Richmond, Los Angeles, Chicago, and a whole hosts of other cities in this country do some real law enforcement work.

------------------
Vigilantibus et non dormientibus jura subveniunt
 
Centralization of policing powers into the FBI would be a Bad Thing. We don't really need a National Police Force with authority over Everything.

Some have complained about the slowness of the course of a Bill through Congress. The built-in inefficiencies of our system are but one of our protections. The Separation of Powers always benefits The People, over any long haul...And so it holds to keep the various areas of federal law enforcement separated.

I note that John Magaw is leaving BATF to head up the Anti-Terrorism Division of FEMA. He is one who does not believe "just folks" should own firearms--and will have a certain amount of power to "define" terrorists or terrorism. Scary to contemplate.

Merry Christmas :(

Art
 
<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>But every LEO can tell you, "We only enforce the laws. We don't make 'em!"[/quote]

Dennis,

This would imply that LEO's are non-thinking robots (Which for most we know is not true), and provides for them the excuse they would need to violate their oath to uphold the Constitution.

For those who do use this as an excuse, "Shame on you for backing such socialistic/communist laws. You have the opportunity to turn your head and allow the Constitution to live. Please do it and allow all of us to breathe easier." [/rant]
:)

------------------
John/az

"The middle of the road between the extremes of good and evil, is evil. When freedom is at stake, your silence is not golden, it's yellow..." RKBA!
 
John,

“But every LEO can tell you, "We only enforce the laws. We don't make
'em!"

Luckily (more than “skillfully” ;) ), I worded the phrase correctly. The
comment is fact, neither hyperbole nor insulting to any LEO.

A few years ago, we would have been “wreaking terror on the highway” for
exceeding that artificial, politically-inspired, 55mph national speed limit.
Yet police were tasked with enforcing that stupid law. Some LEOs enforced
it with gusto and ticketed any and all “speeders” possible. Most (at least
here in Texas) were a bit more circumspect in the application of such a
legislative transgression of reason. In either case, they didn’t write the law
- they only enforced it.

That phrase implies "unthinking robots" only to those who so desire to think
so. My phrase is fact. It puts the blame exactly where it should be - on
the legislators.
-----

That law enforcement personnel frequently use their own better judgment
in enforcing laws can be both a curse and a blessing. (I guess “for the
record” I must state that I believe it is most frequently a blessing. I trust
we agree.)

However, if a cop must determine whether or not a transgression of a law is
worthy of punishment, we are permitting or even requiring a police officer
to become sort of a judge, jury, and an implement of punishment. (If your
speeding ticket is your word against a police officer’s radar, you have a very
small chance of disproving his charge.)

To me, it is a blessing that so many LEOs can perform such “additional
duties” so very well. However, it shows that our legislators have become
our curse by making too many acts illegal and thereby *requiring* such
discretion of our law enforcement personnel.

Contemplate America’s 20,000 to 25,000 gun control laws (and the ATF
officers required to enforce those laws) for an example of what rouses my
ire.

[This message has been edited by Dennis (edited December 26, 1999).]
 
In Texas, a Peace Officer has discretion in how he handles Class 'C' misdemeanors. The law says he 'may' fine or summons the Offender.

However, such latitude is not given for anything more serious than Class 'C' misdemeanors. The law states that (I'm not sure on the quote) if the offense occurs within the sight of a Peace Officer and the offense is punishable as a felony or 'B' or 'A' misdemeanor, then the Peace Officer 'shall' arrest the offender.

A Peace Officer who does not immediately secure an offender under the latter paragraph is guilty of (at the least) Official Misconduct.

Back before the Texas CHL law went into effect it was unlawful to carry a pistol "On or about your person". If a Peace Officer knew you were carrying a pistol, and didn't arrest you, and a third party wanted to make trouble--the Peace Officer could kiss his butt goodbye.

LawDog
 
LawDog,
Now *that* is something I didn't know! Thanks!

(Still, it's the legislators that make the dumb laws. Grumble, grumble! ;) )
 
How many laws go unenforced every day? What was it our gutless v.p. said about "no contolling legal authority."? I'm sorry you guys need to talk to some of the old Texas Rangers (like Jim Peters)about compassion, common sense, and "the law". Quit worrying about cya and worry about what is right, proper, and decent given the current situation, available facts, and circumstances. It is just like in the schools where kids are punished equally with the instigator for protecting themselves. It is more expedient for administrators to follow the "guidelines and policies" then use their brains to do the right thing. Courtesy, compassion, and understanding should not be at odds with the law. That is why men enforce the law, not robots.
 
I've met Ranger Peters. I was not able to spend time with him and really get to know him. But my first impression was all you say and all I infer from your comment.
 
Why quibble about which federal agency should be doing what when they're both unconstitutional? Jag-off legislatwhores inflicted us with both organizations, and we've been getting screwed ever since.

If this mess is what gubmint does for us, I'll take anarchy.

------------------
"In many ways we are treated quite like men." Erich Maria Remarque
 
Dennis: I believe what you're describing is called "the Nuremburg defense". "I was just following orders!" So said the guys who fed the gas chambers; They were just enforcing the law, too.

You just can't get away from moral responsibility that easilly, Dennis. Police ARE responsible for the morality of the laws they enforce. They're not automatons, they're people, capable of independent moral judgement! They chose to enforce the law, and they renew that choice every day they don't seek another line of work.

Let's make it simple: Suppose Congres passed, and the President signed, and the Supreme court upheld, a law demanding the immediate execution of every welfare mother in the country; Do you think the police would simply enforce it, or would the quite en mass? If you'd answer the latter, then you admit that enforcing the law is a CHOICE, and they bear the responsibility for the choices they make.

------------------
Sic semper tyranus!
 
We should all work toward the total ban on tobacco thus giving these cowboys something to do besides the constant harrassment of lawful firearms owners.

They used to be the "Revenuers" but the price of materials drove the illegal stills out of business. With nothing to do, they came after us.

------------------
Gun Control: The proposition that a woman found dead in an alley, raped and strangled with her own panty hose, is more acceptable than allowing that same woman to defend herself with a firearm.
 
Brett,

We're looking at two sides of the same coin. My point is that legislators
make bad laws and put the cop in the position where he MUST choose to:
- ignore the law because it is bad, unreasonable or should not apply in this
case;
- use the law to punish someone who deserves punishment because of this
law, or
- use a bad law to punish someone for some offense not even related to the
law used to punish him.

You are stressing the judgement a police officer must exercise and I agree.
I agree! I am saying that our legislators (in their cushy offices, with
security guards) are putting our cops and our non-cops in horrible positions
because of the legislators’ lust for power. I’m NOT attacking the LEOs, OK?
(If anything, I’m on THEIR side here!)

As for your example:
- I've already agreed that LEOs choose to enforce or not enforce a given
law, sometimes at their own peril (as LawDog explained).
- If our government required the execution of all welfare mothers:
-- some officers would "do their duty" with the same gusto as did the
Gestapo and SD(Sicherheitsdienst);
-- some officers would enforce the law out of habit, fear, coercion, or a
perceived need;
-- many officers would quit or openly revolt.

As for percentages in each category, ANY conjecture offered by ANYone
would be guesswork, insulting, and argumentative. Worse than a mere
waste of time, it would divide rather than unite us as gun owners and
believers in the Constitution. Therefore I would ask (repeat, "ask") it simply
be skipped on TFL and be discussed in the privacy of e-mail.
-----

By the way, when I was in Germany, I dated the daughter of the Chief of
Police. (It was a small town. ;) ) He explained many police officers were
dragged out of the police station, into the street, and shot by officers of the
(German) federal government for not enforcing Nazi laws.

When it comes down to the officer supporting his superiors or having his
family sent to the ovens, many officers (who would rather die) will do
whatever it takes for their family to survive. To simply say the police
officers are responsible for the laws they enforce is to disregard the power
the government can wield over that officer.

That is one of the big reasons we must NEVER let our government get that
kind of power over us - the kind of power the Democrats and Republicans
strive for every day.
- To believe it can not happen here is dangerously naive!
- To believe Americans would not succumb to such power is to ignore what
we did to fellow Americans in the 1940s simply because they were of
Japanese, German, or Italian ancestry.

A government, ANY government, is at best a necessary evil.
(Jefferson was a brilliant man.)
-----

Yes, I'm angry this morning. Not at you, Brett, or at any member of TFL. I've just read the recent American Legion Magazine. There was a lengthy article about the candidates for President and many Legionnaires proudly displayed their flat-out stupidity (WAY past mere ignorance) by explaining whom they support and why. Grrr. And these specimens are supposed to be my contemporaries. Double GRRRRR.

We must get this government under control!

The Grump is back!

[This message has been edited by Dennis (edited December 27, 1999).]
 
Jimpeel---SHAME ON YOU--- X2

Jim wrote: "We should all work on a total bann on tobacco so that these cowboys will
go chase smokers and leave lawfull gun owners alone."

Thems fightin words to us gun owners who
smoke,buddy! A carton of ciggarettes cost
25.00, and that breaks down to 3.50 for the
tobacco and 21.50 for the revenueers, both state and federal.

1. We pay for the priviledge to smoke.

2.We extercise freedom of choice if we choose to smoke.

3.If you choose not to smoke,fine & good for you, but what gives you the ALLEGED right
to make MY CHOICE for me? NOTHING WHATSOEVER!

4. Im as pissed off about smokers rights as I am about gun owners rights and you just stepped in it.

5. Your rights end when they infringe on my rights.

6. You may think that it is politically correct to beat up on smokers rights, but it
is only another case of might makes right and I ,for one, wont stand for it.
Just as you,
I am sure ,won't stand for your guns being Konfiscated.

I realize that you are not a smoker, because if you were, you would have never wrote such a redicious sentance.

Believe it or not ,there is a smoker's rights movement to which I am a member.

It is similar to the gun owners rights movement to which we both belong.

I had some guests ask me to stop smoking in my own home and I told them that this was a designated smoking zone and if they wanted
that they could move to a different smoke
free room in my house. I also told them of all the places that I was prohibited from smoking and that I would be dammed if people
were going to come into my home and tell me not to smoke after what I, & other smokers, are forced to put up with every day outside our homes.

I was around in the 60"s when smoking
ruled & every one smoked. I still have a hard time reconsiling how things have changed.

A total ban on smoking?; over my dead
body and 6,000 expended rounds.

------------------
Every year,over 2 million Americans use firearms
to preserve life,limb & family.Gun Control Democrats
would prefer that they all die,instead.
ernest2, Conn. CAN opp. "Do What You Can"!
http://thematrix.acmecity.com/digital/237/cansite/can.html
 
Back
Top