More BATF BS!!!!
- Thread starter denfoote
- Start date
Dust Monkey
New member
The article suggests that a woman bought 13 automatic weapons. How does one buy 13 Automatic weapons without raising flags? Hell, if I purchase 2 semi auto pistols, my dealer has to fill out a mutiple purchase paperwork.
ajaxinacan
New member
Aside from the obvious statement about "automatic" weapons, what's wrong with the article?
For the sake of arguement, let's assume some ATF agent used the out-of-date term "automatic" for a semi-automatic weapon. Thirty years ago, it was very common, even normal to use the terms interchagably. Or (more likely) assume the reporter inserted the term "automatic" on his own.
Help me understand how this is a bad thing? Some person buys weapons (automatic or otherwise) and attempts to export them illegally to criminals who prey on our own citizens. They get caught and you guys think it's just more "BS?" :barf:
I say this was good police work.
For the sake of arguement, let's assume some ATF agent used the out-of-date term "automatic" for a semi-automatic weapon. Thirty years ago, it was very common, even normal to use the terms interchagably. Or (more likely) assume the reporter inserted the term "automatic" on his own.
Help me understand how this is a bad thing? Some person buys weapons (automatic or otherwise) and attempts to export them illegally to criminals who prey on our own citizens. They get caught and you guys think it's just more "BS?" :barf:
I say this was good police work.
The skeptical observer...
The Phoenix Field Division of ATF is one of the more political, arguably out of control ATF offices in the country. The Cavalry Arms raid stands out as a glaring example of abuse. Always Think Forfeiture exemplified? Anyone can google "thomas mangan"+"atf" for a selection of politically slanted articles and videos.
Read between the lines, people! Aside from the obvious inflammatory "automatic weapons" misdirection, this article is rather peculiar in that a suspect is not named...raising the suspicion that the arrestee was a paid informant, and that the straw purchase was, in fact concocted by the ATF to entrap someone perceived to be a "bigger fish"; with a "international drug cartel" persona. That would translate into awards and promotions for the office.
Seems like the Phoenix ATF office specializes in splashy raids and busts, that rarely follow with trials and/or convictions. Wonder why?
We currently have a "multiple handgun purchase" reporting form for FFL's. Judging from the string of press releases, I guarantee that the Phoenix ATF office is leading the political cause for a MULTIPLE RIFLE PURCHASE reporting form, or even more obnoxious, the ONE GUN PER MONTH purchase restiction; if that can be accomplished under the new Obama regime. You heard it here first.
The Phoenix Field Division of ATF is one of the more political, arguably out of control ATF offices in the country. The Cavalry Arms raid stands out as a glaring example of abuse. Always Think Forfeiture exemplified? Anyone can google "thomas mangan"+"atf" for a selection of politically slanted articles and videos.
Read between the lines, people! Aside from the obvious inflammatory "automatic weapons" misdirection, this article is rather peculiar in that a suspect is not named...raising the suspicion that the arrestee was a paid informant, and that the straw purchase was, in fact concocted by the ATF to entrap someone perceived to be a "bigger fish"; with a "international drug cartel" persona. That would translate into awards and promotions for the office.
Seems like the Phoenix ATF office specializes in splashy raids and busts, that rarely follow with trials and/or convictions. Wonder why?
We currently have a "multiple handgun purchase" reporting form for FFL's. Judging from the string of press releases, I guarantee that the Phoenix ATF office is leading the political cause for a MULTIPLE RIFLE PURCHASE reporting form, or even more obnoxious, the ONE GUN PER MONTH purchase restiction; if that can be accomplished under the new Obama regime. You heard it here first.
oldcspsarge
New member
I would bet the reporter doesnt know semi from full auto and IS using a generic term.
I am glad they seized the guns. It is illegal to export firearms from the USA to Mexico without a permit. These were not for self defense in Mexico or sport hunting !
Mexico drug cartels are at war with the government and killing police officers and chiefs almost daily in Mexico. It is really bad..google it to read abou the running gun battles in the streets.
BATF has a job to do. They differ from the Boy Scouts of America as they do not have responsible adult leadership !
This seizure is a good thing ! WACO and Ruby Ridge were crimes against American Citizens....and effectively swept under the carpet .
I am glad they seized the guns. It is illegal to export firearms from the USA to Mexico without a permit. These were not for self defense in Mexico or sport hunting !
Mexico drug cartels are at war with the government and killing police officers and chiefs almost daily in Mexico. It is really bad..google it to read abou the running gun battles in the streets.
BATF has a job to do. They differ from the Boy Scouts of America as they do not have responsible adult leadership !
This seizure is a good thing ! WACO and Ruby Ridge were crimes against American Citizens....and effectively swept under the carpet .
Here's a good example of what I referenced: ABC news facilitates Phoenix ATF rogues Newell & Mangan hyperbole; concerning inanimate objects. Notice the reference to "multiple sales forms"? Cue the cute feminine voice ..."do you guys have any AK's?":barf:
http://abcnews.go.com/Video/playerIndex?id=4711745
http://abcnews.go.com/Video/playerIndex?id=4711745
"Help me understand how this is a bad thing? Some person buys weapons (automatic or otherwise) and attempts to export them illegally to criminals who prey on our own citizens. They get caught and you guys think it's just more "BS?"
I say this was good police work."
It is not and and it. Good for them. Had the FBI, ICE, or any other entity interdicted the suspect what would be different? Nothing of substance. Targeting multi-felony commiting criminals, and catching them during the course of criminal activity, should be high on the list of any investigations outfit, ATF or other wise.
I say this was good police work."
It is not and and it. Good for them. Had the FBI, ICE, or any other entity interdicted the suspect what would be different? Nothing of substance. Targeting multi-felony commiting criminals, and catching them during the course of criminal activity, should be high on the list of any investigations outfit, ATF or other wise.
Tennessee Gentleman
New member
I thought this was the sort of thing that the BATFE was supposed to do. Good for them.
They aren't illegal just regulated.
They can own them but their ownership is restricted. I'm glad they are.
We ain't in Switzerland and there are stringent requirements for handling and usage of those weapons in Switzerland. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_politics_in_Switzerland
I think very few people other than criminals owned them. I have no hard numbers on that (nobody has any numbers to refute my position either) but common sense tells me that FA weapons would not have been a choice for civilians then because of the cost and that impracticality for civilian use.
You have to register them and possess a license to drive them. Also, your insurance will charge you more to own them. All rights in the COTUS are limited and none are absolute.
Mexico's problems often tend to become our problems. See the methamphetimine problem.
We are a nation of laws. The SCOTUS has not declared those firearms laws unconstitutional so they are NOT an infringement on our rights. Lock her up tight.
They aren't illegal just regulated.
They can own them but their ownership is restricted. I'm glad they are.
We ain't in Switzerland and there are stringent requirements for handling and usage of those weapons in Switzerland. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_politics_in_Switzerland
I think very few people other than criminals owned them. I have no hard numbers on that (nobody has any numbers to refute my position either) but common sense tells me that FA weapons would not have been a choice for civilians then because of the cost and that impracticality for civilian use.
You have to register them and possess a license to drive them. Also, your insurance will charge you more to own them. All rights in the COTUS are limited and none are absolute.
Mexico's problems often tend to become our problems. See the methamphetimine problem.
We are a nation of laws. The SCOTUS has not declared those firearms laws unconstitutional so they are NOT an infringement on our rights. Lock her up tight.
Last edited:
Stagger Lee
New member
I'm good with it. Nice job, BATFE. Guns that don't wind up in the hands of Mexican criminals can't kill US Border agents, civilians on border towns, or even innocent Mexicans. Nothing good comes of criminals possessing guns, be they here in America or just over the virtually non-existent border.
This is what BATFE does...it takes guns away from the people that aren't supposed to have them.
This is what BATFE does...it takes guns away from the people that aren't supposed to have them.
+1 Tennessee Gentleman. Good to interject some rational thought once in a while to these threads.
Were I the licensed dealer the woman approached about buying 13 rifles for her personal use, I'd either:
1) refuse her on the spot, or
2) Ask her to come back tomorrow for delivery, then call the ATF so they could be there, too.
This is simply a case of enforcing the laws on the books, and it sounds like it went well. I seriously hope they got the higher-ups and not just the "gun mules" in this transaction.
I have serious concerns over the Cavalry Arms issue and hope it gets investigated thoroughly - but this seems well above-board.
Were I the licensed dealer the woman approached about buying 13 rifles for her personal use, I'd either:
1) refuse her on the spot, or
2) Ask her to come back tomorrow for delivery, then call the ATF so they could be there, too.
This is simply a case of enforcing the laws on the books, and it sounds like it went well. I seriously hope they got the higher-ups and not just the "gun mules" in this transaction.
I have serious concerns over the Cavalry Arms issue and hope it gets investigated thoroughly - but this seems well above-board.
CWO4USCGRET
New member
I think some of you are missing the boat
Despite what a small number of you may think of the BATFE Field Office in Phoenix or BATFE in general, or the fact that they are mislabeled as automatics, there was nothing legal in the purchase of the guns or the smuggling of them out of the country.
I don't see how any of you can justify those actions. Its criminals like her that cause the rest of us legitmate gun owners (and I'm a Federal LEO too) to suffer from needless over-regulation.
Despite what a small number of you may think of the BATFE Field Office in Phoenix or BATFE in general, or the fact that they are mislabeled as automatics, there was nothing legal in the purchase of the guns or the smuggling of them out of the country.
I don't see how any of you can justify those actions. Its criminals like her that cause the rest of us legitmate gun owners (and I'm a Federal LEO too) to suffer from needless over-regulation.
Tennessee Gentleman
New member
Well said kamerer and CWO4USCGRET. My dad once told me that locks were for honest people.
TheBluesMan
Moderator Emeritus
I tend to side with most of the other members here in failing to see how this is "BATF BS", Dennis. Care to explain your position in a little more depth?
There is a very basic point here that no one seems to have addressed. If I may, I'd like to lead the forum to it.
The woman bought a bunch of guns and tried to smuggle them across the border to sell to some drug lords. Right?
Those drug lords are at "war" with their government (and ours) over the distribution of controlled substances (drugs.) Right?
War, usually an unprofitable undertaking, is only profitable in this case because of the huge fees charged for the product. Right?
While there is a market for those drugs in Mexico, the primary market is here in the US. Right?
Those drugs, if manufactured in a legal American factory and sold at Walgreen's would be sold for pennies on the dollar rather than at the exorbitant prices they now draw. Right?
Those exorbitant prices are less an effect of manufacturing costs than a side effect of the enforcement of governmental controls. Right?
Ergo, if government were to "butt out" the prices would drop (after a certain "binge period" in which all the users would go nuts, OD and further reduce the market,) the drug lords would be reduced to fighting over whose sister was insulted at the last party and no one would care whether guns were being transported across the border.
Sound good? Think it could happen? Not in our wildest dreams. Here's why.
If you think the drug distribution business is big you should look at the drug interdiction business. A number of members of this board derive a goodly portion of their paychecks from the war on drugs. Enforcement officers, prosecutors, judges, social workers, correctional officers, probation agents and all the millions of support personnel would suddenly be out of jobs. We'd have to close prisons which would leave whole towns with no supporting industry.
No, we've allowed the government to stick its nose and then its finger into places it didn't belong. Now we're realizing that that was neither a nose or a finger and... we're screwed.
The woman bought a bunch of guns and tried to smuggle them across the border to sell to some drug lords. Right?
Those drug lords are at "war" with their government (and ours) over the distribution of controlled substances (drugs.) Right?
War, usually an unprofitable undertaking, is only profitable in this case because of the huge fees charged for the product. Right?
While there is a market for those drugs in Mexico, the primary market is here in the US. Right?
Those drugs, if manufactured in a legal American factory and sold at Walgreen's would be sold for pennies on the dollar rather than at the exorbitant prices they now draw. Right?
Those exorbitant prices are less an effect of manufacturing costs than a side effect of the enforcement of governmental controls. Right?
Ergo, if government were to "butt out" the prices would drop (after a certain "binge period" in which all the users would go nuts, OD and further reduce the market,) the drug lords would be reduced to fighting over whose sister was insulted at the last party and no one would care whether guns were being transported across the border.
Sound good? Think it could happen? Not in our wildest dreams. Here's why.
If you think the drug distribution business is big you should look at the drug interdiction business. A number of members of this board derive a goodly portion of their paychecks from the war on drugs. Enforcement officers, prosecutors, judges, social workers, correctional officers, probation agents and all the millions of support personnel would suddenly be out of jobs. We'd have to close prisons which would leave whole towns with no supporting industry.
No, we've allowed the government to stick its nose and then its finger into places it didn't belong. Now we're realizing that that was neither a nose or a finger and... we're screwed.