BATF up to their old tricks!

[towerclimber37]

We all pride ourselves on observance of firearm laws. We take pride in being GOOD citizens, law abiding citizens.

The BATF a branch of the federal government doesn't always abide by the same rules and often hides its own actions in order to keep public outcry from legislating their corrupt butts out of existence!

take notice of whats going on here and post up! I would like to know if others feel the same way that I do...i.e. the BATF should be gutted at the very least, and a supervisory panel put in place to keep them from pulling another waco or another Ruby Ridge affair.

Their use of intimidation and outright murder is one of the reasons I don't trust the government with my fingernail parings, much less anything else!

http://redstradingpost.blogspot.com/2007/07/latest-on-our-fight.html

also here

http://waronguns.blogspot.com/

[TGO David]

Wow. Just wow. Been reading through Horsely's blog for the past few minutes and have been sitting here just shaking my head in sad amazement.

[Mike.357]

The BATFE is no ones friend. They are not against guns, just against citizens having them. They are for the law, just the law where they can harrass honest lawabiding, gun owning citizens. If laws do not apply then they use their so-called authority to stop citizens from exercising basic rights. I could only shake my head at the recording of images. In my similar experience the local news crews could film, but a bystander had his camera taken away. Later it was returned but that tells me the police were overstepping their bounds as in the above instance.

Plain and simple, law enforcement officers, no matter who their bosses are are not your friend. Do not willingly allow them to search you or your property. They are looking to make arrests and generate income for their agencies. Doing the right thing will rarely come into play.

The BATFE is a hairs breadth short of being a gestapo type agency, the only difference is there covert methods. But not to worry, if undercover does not work they will plain come at you to do what they wish.

[Guest Len]

Ok, I was reading through the suggested blogs and came across lots of anti-govt. vitriol because of the case of Wayne Fincher. Seems this guy was arrested for breaking federal gun laws (owned machine guns without a license to do so) and the gun rights community is up in arms? A sad story about how daddy was taken to prison? Seems like a pretty clear case to me -he admitted owning the guns in violation of federal law. Don't like the law? Fine, work to repeal it. Blame ATF? Why? They are just doing their job -enforcing federal firearms laws. Arguing against the jurisdiction of the federal court in the case? That seems a bit much. Oh, and the blogger mentions this guy by referring to his "rank" in a "militia." Yeah, this is just the image the gun-rights movement needs...

Ok, so I have shed the light of day on my ignorance. Anyone want to clue me in on why this case is a travesty of justice and serves as evidence that ATF should be eliminated?

[molonlabetn]

...Anyone want to clue me in on why this case is a travesty of justice and serves as evidence that ATF should be eliminated?

Because the Federal Government has no Constitutional authority to infringe the right of law-abiding Americans to keep and bear arms. The 2nd Amendment does not say that we may only keep and bear certain types of arms, such laws are unconstitutional... as such, the BATFE is the enforcer of tyrannical, unconstitutional laws, much like the British red-coats were.

[towerclimber37]

Len, I was astounded by the BATFU's use of gestapo tactics and harrassment type tactics to attempt to shut down a gunshop thats been in business for over 70 years.

the basic tactic is for them to use the vast resources of the Justice department to wear people down..most people have only a finite amount of funds to pay for their legal problems. The BATF uses the vast resources of the federal government as well as harrassment and intimidation tactics that are almost trademarks of the BATF.

They found 2 errors in Mr. Horsely's paperworks..thats 10 years worth of paperwork!!! so what do they do? they petetion the court so that they can inspect his business. Now they have him where they want him...they can now descend on his business, intimidate customers, threaten his employees and work to put him out of business.

And LEN, if you believe they follow the law, then perhaps you should read about the Ruby Ridge incident...where they shot a 12 year old boy in the back.

[Guest c.a.s.]

ALso, in the Wayne Fincher case, they ENTRAPPED him, and he was in ful compliance with the law anyway. Those "machine guns" were unfinished .50 single shot rifle kits. Shows how much ou should trust the government.

[Guest Len]

While I have been suitably educated on ATF tactics, I must offer a minor disagreement to Eddie's statement. There are two ways to go, the more extreme and the less extreme. I am a believer in the less extreme constitutional argument. But here's both of them in a nutshell:

1) The "well regulated militia" clause in the 2A opens the door for at least state-level regulation of arms. (This is the more extreme of the two.)

2) The founders were focusing on what we today might call "man-portable" or non-crew-operated weapons, ie rifles and handguns -what the average militia man would carry into battle or have over the mantle at home. Anything above and beyond that level of fire power is open game for regulation by the federal govt and the states. (This is the less extreme view.)

That said, it seems "machine guns" (at least some of them) are "man-portable" and thus should be permitted, on the basis of the Constitution at least. But we (and the BATFE) are not the ones who decide if lawfully-enacted legislation is constitutional.

And Mr. Fincher's lawyers made, in my opinion a tactical error in basing their defense on the argument that the law is unconstitutional and the court lacked jurisdiction. An argument based on poor paperwork or entrapment would have worked better than the constitutional grandstanding that did nothing but send a man with guns to jail.

Because the Federal Government has no Constitutional authority to infringe the right of law-abiding Americans to keep and bear arms. The 2nd Amendment does not say that we may only keep and bear certain types of arms, such laws are unconstitutional... as such, the BATFE is the enforcer of tyrannical, unconstitutional laws, much like the British red-coats were.

[Guest c.a.s.]

ALso, he wasn't allowed to give his side of the case to the jury.

[molonlabetn]

While I have been suitably educated on ATF tactics, I must offer a minor disagreement to Eddie's statement. There are two ways to go, the more extreme and the less extreme. I am a believer in the less extreme constitutional argument. But here's both of them in a nutshell:

1) The "well regulated militia" clause in the 2A opens the door for at least state-level regulation of arms. (This is the more extreme of the two.)

2) The founders were focusing on what we today might call "man-portable" or non-crew-operated weapons, ie rifles and handguns -what the average militia man would carry into battle or have over the mantle at home. Anything above and beyond that level of fire power is open game for regulation by the federal govt and the states. (This is the less extreme view.)

That said, it seems "machine guns" (at least some of them) are "man-portable" and thus should be permitted, on the basis of the Constitution at least. But we (and the BATFE) are not the ones who decide if lawfully-enacted legislation is constitutional.

And Mr. Fincher's lawyers made, in my opinion a tactical error in basing their defense on the argument that the law is unconstitutional and the court lacked jurisdiction. An argument based on poor paperwork or entrapment would have worked better than the constitutional grandstanding that did nothing but send a man with guns to jail.

The civil war was fought with many privately owned field artillery... the first gatling guns were privately owned and fielded... There was no confusion then that 'arms' meant ALL arms. Also... in terms of the meaning of the phrase 'well regulated' as it was meant in any context during that period, literally meant 'properly equipped'.

Doesn't that make more sense? Looking at the 2nd Amendment as the founders' intention to ensure that the people were properly equipped with arms in order to defend their freedom...

A well regulated (properly equipped) Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

[DaveTN]

The civil war was fought with many privately owned field artillery... the first gatling guns were privately owned and fielded...

They were subject to whatever laws (if any) the states they were in had in place. They were not acting under authority of the Federal government unless they were in the military.

There was no confusion then that 'arms' meant ALL arms. Also... in terms of the meaning of the phrase 'well regulated' as it was meant in any context during that period, literally meant 'properly equipped'.

There is confusion on every aspect of the second amendment. The only thing that is crystal clear is that we have a system in place for disputes involving the Constitution.

Doesn't that make more sense? Looking at the 2nd Amendment as the founders' intention to ensure that the people were properly equipped with arms in order to defend their freedom...

If that is what they meant that is what they would have said. If their intent was for an individual to be protected from either the Feds or the state limiting their ownership or use of firearms; that is what they would have written.

“A well regulated Militia†is not exactly how I would have started out if my intent was to protect the individual. However… that is exactly how I may have started it out if my intent was to protect the states right to maintain a militia.

[towerclimber37]

Dave, respectfully, I disagree. Jefferson made it absolutely clear in the federalist papers why the second amendment was included and just exactly who it was included for..and who it applied to.

They were subject to whatever laws (if any) the states they were in had in place. They were not acting under authority of the Federal government unless they were in the military.

There is confusion on every aspect of the second amendment. The only thing that is crystal clear is that we have a system in place for disputes involving the Constitution.

If that is what they meant that is what they would have said. If their intent was for an individual to be protected from either the Feds or the state limiting their ownership or use of firearms; that is what they would have written.

“A well regulated Militia†is not exactly how I would have started out if my intent was to protect the individual. However… that is exactly how I may have started it out if my intent was to protect the states right to maintain a militia.

[molonlabetn]

If that is what they meant that is what they would have said.

My point is, from their context, that IS what they said. "regulation" did not have the same meaning it does today.

As Tower pointed out, the founding fathers made it crystal clear in their subsequent writings to whom and why the 2nd Amendment applies. You have to realize that standing armies, which the antis would have you believe is meant by 'militia', were undesirable... the nation's defense by the people was the intention:

"The highest number to which a standing army can be carried in any country does not exceed one hundredth part of the souls, or one twenty-fifth part of the number able to bear arms. This portion would not yield, in the United States, an army of more than twenty-five or thirty thousand men. To these would be opposed a militia amounting to near half a million citizens with arms in their hands, officered by men chosen from among themselves, fighting for their common liberties and united and conducted by governments possessing their affections and confidence. It may well be doubted whether a militia thus circumstanced could ever be conquered by such a proportion of regular troops. Besides the advantage of being armed, it forms a barrier against the enterprises of ambition, more insurmountable than any which a simple government of any form can admit of. The governments of Europe are afraid to trust the people with arms. If they did, the people would surely shake off the yoke of tyranny, as America did. Let us not insult the free and gallant citizens of America with the suspicion that they would be less able to defend the rights of which they would be in actual possession than the debased subjects of arbitrary power would be to rescue theirs from the hands of their oppressors. -- James Madison, principal author of the Constitution, principal writer of The Federalist Papers, Fourth President of the United States, Mainstream Revolutionary and Militant.

"Firearms stand next in importance to the Constitution itself. They are the American people's liberty teeth and keystone under independence. From the hour the Pilgrims landed, to the present day, events occurences and tendencies prove that to ensure peace, security and happiness, the rifle and pistol are equally indispenable. The very atmosphere of firearms everywhere restrains evil interference - they deserve a place of honor with all that's good." -- George Washington, Commanding General of the Continental Army, Father of Our Country and First President of the United States in a speech to Congress, January 7, 1790

"What, Sir, is the use of a militia? It is to prevent the establishment of a standing army, the bane of liberty. . . .Whenever Governments mean to invade the rights and liberties of the people, they always attempt to destroy the militia, in order to raise an army upon their ruins." - Rep. Elbridge Gerry of Massachusetts, Signer of the Declaration of Independence, VP of the United States 1813-1814, spoken during floor debate over the Second Amendment, I Annals of Congress at 750, August 17, 1789

The 'militia' IS the people, armed. This last quotation clearly makes the distinction between the regular, government organized army, and the armed citizens who make up the militia.

The meaning of many words have been twisted over the years, for the sole purpose of twisting the truth, to make the weak-minded doubt the full purport of their liberty. Don't fall into that trap.

[DaveTN]

Dave, respectfully, I disagree. Jefferson made it absolutely clear in the federalist papers why the second amendment was included and just exactly who it was included for..and who it applied to.

Don’t get me wrong I believe I have a right to bear arms, but I do not believe nor do I want to tie that right to the 2<SUP>nd</SUP> amendment.

I believe that when I am at a traffic light and an armed thug tries to car jack me; I have the very basic right to protect my life and the lives of my family by being able to repel that attack. Disarming me takes that very basic right away.

I am a realist. While you may think that the 2<SUP>nd</SUP> amendment gives you some right to have a firearm; it clearly does not. All but two Federal Courts have ruled it is not an individual right. The SCOUTS has refused to make that decision, they have left it up to the lower courts. Some believe that they may be considering hearing one of those cases; I am absolutely sure in my own mind we will not like the outcome.

Do you believe that the ability to carry in the state of <?xml:namespace prefix = st1 ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:smarttags" /><st1:State>Tennessee</st1:State> comes from a right in the Constitution, or is simply a privilege granted you by the state?

It angers me anymore when I hear “My second amendment rightsâ€. They aren’t rights if your government doesn’t recognize them as such. Tying gun ownership to the 2<SUP>nd</SUP> amendment would be a great victory for the anti-gun groups.

[DaveTN]

The meaning of many words have been twisted over the years, for the sole purpose of twisting the truth, to make the weak-minded doubt the full purport of their liberty. Don't fall into that trap.

The weak minded grab “My 2<SUP>nd</SUP> amendment rights†as a battle cry. Do the research, read the documents and the rulings. They are no different meanings or twisting of words. You can’t make it mean anything more than is stated. It’s the Constitution; not the bible… <?xml:namespace prefix = st1 ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:smarttags" /><st1:City>Reading</st1:City> is fundamental.

[molonlabetn]

Don’t get me wrong I believe I have a right to bear arms, but I do not believe nor do I want to tie that right to the 2<SUP>nd</SUP> amendment.

I believe that when I am at a traffic light and an armed thug tries to car jack me; I have the very basic right to protect my life and the lives of my family by being able to repel that attack. Disarming me takes that very basic right away.

I am a realist. While you may think that the 2<SUP>nd</SUP> amendment gives you some right to have a firearm; it clearly does not. All but two Federal Courts have ruled it is not an individual right. The SCOUTS has refused to make that decision, they have left it up to the lower courts. Some believe that they may be considering hearing one of those cases; I am absolutely sure in my own mind we will not like the outcome.

Do you believe that the ability to carry in the state of <?xml:namespace prefix = st1 ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:smarttags" /><st1:State>Tennessee</st1:State> comes from a right in the Constitution, or is simply a privilege granted you by the state?

It angers me anymore when I hear “My second amendment rights”. They aren’t rights if your government doesn’t recognize them as such. Tying gun ownership to the 2<SUP>nd</SUP> amendment would be a great victory for the anti-gun groups.

Why do you think our rights have deteriorated to this point Dave? I agree that this society and government has trampled on them, but I think it is apathetic to say they no longer exist, simply because they are not recognized. The original intent of the 2nd Amendment is undeniable, in light of the other documentation from its authors. And I agree with you that the 2nd Amendment is not the source of my right to be armed... but because of the current state of things, it is the only thing standing in the government's way of trampling the other enumerated and basic citizen's rights we cherish.

A comparative perspective... Communist countries do not recognize the right of individuals to (as we would say) 'free speech'. Does that mean their right does not exist?

No! It is merely oppressed.

Our right to arm ourselves certainly exists... but only by claiming it can the oppression towards it be resisted.

[molonlabetn]

The weak minded grab “My 2<SUP>nd</SUP> amendment rights†as a battle cry. Do the research, read the documents and the rulings. They are no different meanings or twisting of words. You can’t make it mean anything more than is stated. It’s the Constitution; not the bible… <?xml:namespace prefix = st1 ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:smarttags" /><st1:City>Reading</st1:City> is fundamental.

At least there are some who would do battle for what they believe in, instead of roll over and say "oh well, there my priviledges go..." I'm sure glad none of the great men/women throughout world history have never been like what you suggest.

[Guest Len]

Very interesting thread!

[Mark@Sea]

Ever heard of a letter of marque?

A warship is definitely not a man-portable weapon system. Yet they existed, in private hands, during the revolutionary war.

Field pieces, cannon - were in private hands. Can you imagine a shotgun with a 3 inch bore? Somebody want to trot out the old 'they meant flintlocks' line again?

Certainly, from their invention in the late 1800's up until the revenuers found themselves looking for a job in '32, machine guns were not regulated.

"And every other terrible implement of the soldier"

The Bill of Rights recognizes (not 'grants') certain pre-existing rights as the hallmarks of a free people. They were enumerated as a check against the power of the government, a 'no trespassing' sign writ large.

Out of date? Tell that to the 200 million people disarmed, then murdered by their own governments in the last century.

[jgrauman]

This is for DaveTN... if you keep saying it's up to the government to decide what we should do and just take it, this may be in your future.

What if we treated the 1st amendment like they do the 2nd?

What if you had the 1st amendment , but it was regulated like the RKBA.

? If you want to use profanity, you would need to get a BLP (bad language permit) it would require a background check and would coast $50 every 5 years.

? If you wanted to print an article for public view or display, you would need to wait 10 days so you don’t write something in anger. You will also need to have a license to distribute your literature, otherwise, you would need to go through a licensed article dealer.

? You may only use paper and a pencil when writing. No one “Needs†a computer keyboard that can type that many words per minute.

? Political speech would be considered special and require a $200 tax stamp. Also, you lose your right to speech while in the Post Office or other Federal buildings, most schools, and other government/state property.

? Christianity, Judaism, and Islam are not legal in NYC, Chicago, and D.C.

? Depending on where you live, you may need to register your religion.

? Only the Military and Police may assemble.

[towerclimber37]

I was just re-reading this thread to see if I missed anything and then something occurred to me. Molonlabetn said this

Because the Federal Government has no Constitutional authority to infringe the right of law-abiding Americans to keep and bear arms. The 2nd Amendment does not say that we may only keep and bear certain types of arms, such laws are unconstitutional... as such, the BATFE is the enforcer of tyrannical, unconstitutional laws, much like the British red-coats were.

Unfortunately, the Federal government has usurped our rights to choose what sort of firearms we may own.

this was done in 1932 in order to give law enforcement officials a way to control crime. WE gave that right away by allowing the government to enact legislation curbing our RKBA instead of hiring more law enforcement personnel.

Since that time, an aggressive policy of eroding both our right and the recognition thereof (notice Janet Reno's ludicrous idea that the 2a applied to national guard only).

This all stems from the basic premise that the people are not responsible for their own safety nor held accountable for that safety.

what are your views on this?

[molonlabetn]

What you say is correct. Our rights have been usurped, for the 'greater good'... 'for the children'...

However, we have not lost any of our rights, since they could be regained with the correct application of fortitude and strength... but because of past and present apathy, these rights are oppressed by those who would posture themselves to be our guardians, replacing all individual responsibility and independent thought.

[DaveTN]

This is for DaveTN... if you keep saying it's up to the government to decide what we should do and just take it, this may be in your future.

I am not sure what you are saying. I have not suggested that you give up any rights. I am stating as a fact that you do not have an individual right to bear arms that comes from the 2<SUP>nd</SUP> amendment.

<O:p</O:p

If you are suggesting just disobeying the law; I did that in <?xml:namespace prefix = st1 ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:smarttags" /><st1:State><ST1:pIllinois</st1:State>. I was arrested and jailed.

<O:p</O:p

Over a period of three years my case went to trial; the Judge threw it out, the States Attorney appealed his decision, the appellate court overturned his decision, charges were again filed, a new States Attorney was in, I made a deal with him and charges were ultimately dismissed. I paid thousands of dollars to have it explained to me by my attorneys and a Judge that according to the 7<SUP>th</SUP> District court I do not have a right to bear arms.

<O:p</O:p

I have been there, done that and got the T-shirt. I’m just offering the information; do with it what you like.

<O:p</O:p

[molonlabetn]

Dave... Allow me to again congratulate and welcome you for moving to not-Illinois. Some states are worse that others, indeed... IL is one of the worst. None of this discussion is meant to down-play the valuable experience you have from there.

I think we all understand that 'should be', 'was' and 'really is' get mixed up at times, in debate.

[Mark@Sea]

DaveTN, I agree with you, I think. The second recognizes a pre-existing right, it does not grant it.

I think of it as a tripwire.