BATFE Head Steps Down

[gun sane]

He's taken the bullet for the administration.

 

http://thehill.com/regulation/administration/236423-atf-chief-to-step-down

[MacGyver]

And we never even got to learn his first name...

 

 

Jerry: David Berkowitz, Ted Bundy, Richard Speck... 
Alice: What about them? 
Jerry: Serial killers. Serial killers only have two names. You ever notice that? But lone gunmen assassins, they always have three names. John Wilkes Booth, Lee Harvey Oswald, Mark David Chapman... 
Alice: John Hinckley. He shot Reagan. He only has two names. 
Jerry: Yeah, but he only just shot Reagan. Reagan didn't die. If Reagan had died, I'm pretty sure we probably would all know what John Hinckley's middle name was.

 

 

[TGO David]

As I posted on the TGO Facebook page, I suspect this is the price he paid for failing Obama in the proposed M855 ammo ban.

 

[Oh Shoot]

He's taken the bullet for the administration.

 

http://thehill.com/regulation/administration/236423-atf-chief-to-step-down

 

That's a surprise really. First actual director in 7 years and he didn't even last two.

 

In the light of all the bizarre niche opinion letters coming out of ATF over the last couple years from still "acting chiefs" that contradicted recent previous ones and what not, many of us have opined that the agency seemed very fragmented as to actual direction and management, with even the division names being changed around and etc.

 

I wonder if the M855 flap really had all that much to do with it.

 

- OS

Edited March 20, 2015 by Oh Shoot

[Garufa]

"You can always tell a s###head by that initial initial." -- Edward Abbey

Edited March 20, 2015 by Garufa

[MacGyver]

"Former" directors don't have to worry about being called up before Congress to testify in hearings about ridiculous ammo bans.  They "no longer represent the agency", so they can't speak for them.

[E4 No More]

Don't let the door hit ya where the good Lord split ya!

[btq96r]

That's a surprise really. First actual director in 7 years and he didn't even last two.

 

In the light of all the bizarre niche opinion letters coming out of ATF over the last couple years from still "acting chiefs" that contradicted recent previous ones and what not, many of us have opined that the agency seemed very fragmented as to actual direction and management, with even the division names being changed around and etc.

 

I wonder if the M855 flap really had all that much to do with it.

 

- OS

 

I think because ATF didn't have an appointed director for so long is why we have so much confusion.  Running any agency needs to be done with a purpose, and knowing that every director was only "acting" and really let all the separate divisions of ATF spin into their own worlds too much.

 

Jones was the District Attorney for the US court in Minnesota before he was tapped to lead ATF.  That's a big step up in responsibility, not to mention management and focus areas that he may not have been ready for.  It was probably a combination of not being able to reasonably control such a bureaucratic monster and lack of results in initiatives from the Attorney General and/or the President that brought this on.

[Oh Shoot]

Profile of new acting head, Thomas E. Brandon. At least he didn't get there by being a lawyer, and was a Marine.

 

https://www.atf.gov/content/About/ATF-executive-staff

 

 

 

 

- OS

Edited March 20, 2015 by Oh Shoot

[TrickyNicky]

:rofl: B. Seeing ya B. Todd! :rofl:

 

Now we can only hope we're not out of the pan and into the fire... :ugh:

[hipower]

:rofl: B. Seeing ya B. Todd! :rofl:

 

Now we can only hope we're not out of the pan and into the fire... :ugh:

 

Amen, brother.

[btq96r]

Profile of new acting head, Thomas E. Brandon. At least he didn't get there by being a lawyer, and was a Marine.

 

https://www.atf.gov/content/About/ATF-executive-staff

 

 

Read Jones' bio, he was in the Marines as well.  As an Infantry officer no less. 

[Oh Shoot]

Read Jones' bio, he was in the Marines as well.  As an Infantry officer no less. 

 

Good catch, missed that glancing over his creds.

 

- OS

[Dustbuster]

Good, now every crayon eater, that had to have a personal letter making them special, for getting atf to generate a personal written response about  using your sig brace,balanced on your anus, can now start the process again...y'all WTS....

Edited March 20, 2015 by Dustbuster

[Garufa]

Good, now every crayon eater, that had to have a personal letter making them special, for getting atf to generate a personal written response about  using your sig brace,balanced on your anus, can now start the process again...y'all WTS....

 

B. Todd shoving off has nothing to do with previous "rulings".  Those stand until they say different.

[Dolomite_supafly]

This is nothing more than another rung in the ladder of confusion that is the ATF. Someone else, who is onboard with Obama's agenda, will be appointed shortly and a slew of new opinions will be announced further limiting our rights.

I used to support the ATF as I did any other LE agency but now I no longer view them as a LE agency. The reason is because even though they swore to protect and defend the constitution they continue to attack those rights. If any other agency were to write opinions stating only certain forms of free speech are allowed the liberals would be up in as demanding action but because the ATF is limiting GUN rights the liberals are all for it.

I am sure the agents are tired of the differing opinions and constantly changing policies as well.

[DMark]

"You can always tell a s###head by that initial initial." -- Edward Abbey

 

I'm thinking that there might be some folks in my past who would agree with that statement.  :ugh:

 

D. Mark

[Clod Stomper]

This is nothing more than another rung in the ladder of confusion that is the ATF. Someone else, who is onboard with Obama's agenda, will be appointed shortly and a slew of new opinions will be announced further limiting our rights.

I used to support the ATF as I did any other LE agency but now I no longer view them as a LE agency. The reason is because even though they swore to protect and defend the constitution they continue to attack those rights. If any other agency were to write opinions stating only certain forms of free speech are allowed the liberals would be up in as demanding action but because the ATF is limiting GUN rights the liberals are all for it.

I am sure the agents are tired of the differing opinions and constantly changing policies as well.

Don't think they ever were intended to be a law enforcement agency. They're a tax collection agency. Until the rearrangement after Sept 11, 01, they were under treasury. But they've seen themselves as LE superninjas for a long time now.

I've never had any respect for an agency whose sole purpose is to tax and restrict my RKBA.

I used to be acquainted with an ATF agent. On a personal level, he was a nice guy. But he told stories of how they would harass individuals selling guns at flea markets.

I don't think agents who respect gun rights make it very far in that bureau. That's the impression I get.

[LawEnforcementSalesTN]

Brandon is not any better. Just research and you'll see the flubs he's been involved in over the years.

[Chucktshoes]

This is nothing more than another rung in the ladder of confusion that is the ATF. Someone else, who is onboard with Obama's agenda, will be appointed shortly and a slew of new opinions will be announced further limiting our rights.

I used to support the ATF as I did any other LE agency but now I no longer view them as a LE agency. The reason is because even though they swore to protect and defend the constitution they continue to attack those rights. If any other agency were to write opinions stating only certain forms of free speech are allowed the liberals would be up in as demanding action but because the ATF is limiting GUN rights the liberals are all for it.

I am sure the agents are tired of the differing opinions and constantly changing policies as well.

Oddly enough, those are all the same reasons I view them as no different than any other LE agency. Go figure.

[JohnC]

It's just them trying to deflect attention. He'll go work someplace else for Govt or some Crony-connected job just outside Govt while the next anti-Second-Amendment BATFE directer takes over. Trust me, they have got plenty of anti-2A'ers ready to replace the last one.

[Dolomite_supafly]

This is nothing more than another rung in the ladder of confusion that is the ATF. Someone else, who is onboard with Obama's agenda, will be appointed shortly and a slew of new opinions will be announced further limiting our rights.

I used to support the ATF as I did any other LE agency but now I no longer view them as a LE agency. The reason is because even though they swore to protect and defend the constitution they continue to attack those rights. If any other agency were to write opinions stating only certain forms of free speech are allowed the liberals would be up in as demanding action but because the ATF is limiting GUN rights the liberals are all for it.

I am sure the agents are tired of the differing opinions and constantly changing policies as well.

Oddly enough, those are all the same reasons I view them as no different than any other LE agency. Go figure.

 

 

As a general rule I supported LE for a long time after I quit LE. But over time I quit supporting them as much as I once did and started viewing them differently. Now I only help individual officers, never departments, and only those I have come to know. But even then I do not trust those I know because they will turn if it benefits them. I do not trust the average officer to do what is right any more. Spent enough time in LE to know that most, not all, officers are no longer about protecting their communities but controlling or imparting their will upon others. It seems like the younger they are the worse it is. If I met an officer I mind what I say and what I do often ignoring them if I can because they are always looking.

 

There are some great officers out there that do what is right all the time but all it takes is a chance encounter with one of the bad ones to ruin your life. Even if the officer is 100% in the wrong, and you get cleared of everything, it will cost you 10's of thousands of dollars to do so while the officer is rarely held accountable. I hated to see people who were probably innocent plead guilty to a lesser charge or reduced sentence because they could not afford the cost of being exonerated.

 

I will tell you a story about my last interaction with LE. I had someone do something to my wife and I that was against the law. What they did was put our name, our address, my phone number and pictures of my wife from Facebook. They posted it on Craigslist telling people to come to my house at a specified time and rape my wife. Figuring this was a plan by my brother, who tried to kill us before, I contacted local LE for help. I gave them all the information as well as asked for a patrol to be present at the time specified in the ad in case some crazy decided to show up. They made all kinds of excuses why they could not help. I begged for help and they said they would not until after it happened. I told the sheriff that if anyone came in my house and tried to harm my wife I would kill them. Then the sheriff acted like I was a criminal for making that statement. Well after it was obvious they were not going to help I contacted my attorney who then called the sheriff. The attorney told the sheriff this was a credible threat because my brother had tried to kill us in the past but the sheriff still refused to have a patrol in the area. My attorney then told the sheriff he would sue him if anything happened at the time specified.

 

Well a few days after my attorney threatened to sue the department two officers showed up at my house out of the blue. They asked for me and my wife told them I was sleeping. The officers did not leave and had my wife wake me up from a nap and come to the door so they could talk to me. The reason? They were there because they wanted to know what kind of guns I had in the house. This was nothing more than a fishing trip by the officers, at the direction from the sheriff, to try to find a reason to throw me in jail after my attorney threatened to sue the department. This happened about 4 months ago and that is why I will not trust officers to do what is right, especially my local ones.

[TGO David]

Perhaps it's just the fact that crooked departments make it easier for crooked officers to thrive.  The Chief Law Enforcement Officer at whichever department you want to talk about sets the tempo for what happens beneath them.  If that CLEO is an honest, ethical person intent on defending the Constitution then the department will generally follow suit.  If they aren't, then it generally won't.

 

Really this is fundamentally no different than any other business with a good or bad boss at the top of the ladder.  The problem is that a bad boss in this particular role can really make it miserable on the citizenry.

[Chucktshoes]

(Disclaimer-Here is where I am going to get a bit more controversial. Please take my following statements as they are intended, to further reasoned discussion and to explain a philosophical position, not as a inflammatory attack for trolling purposes.)

I would posit that it is the nature of the beast more so than having the right/wrong person in the job. Something I believe and have said before is that if your system depends on having the right person in power, it is a bad system. So to put it succinctly, the idea of the "good cop" is a useful myth that helps keep the rabble placated. The nature of the job of LE makes the idea of the "good cop" an impossibility. What I mean by that can be best explained with a quote from Robert Higgs.

"The whole Good Cop / Bad Cop question can be disposed of much more decisively. We need not enumerate what proportion of cops appears to be good or listen to someone's anecdote about his uncle Charlie, an allegedly good cop.

We need only consider the following:

(1) A cop's job is to enforce the laws, all of them;
(2) Many of the laws are manifestly unjust, and some are even cruel and wicked;
(3) Therefore every cop has to agree to act as an enforcer for laws that are manifestly unjust or even cruel and wicked.

There are no good cops."

Thus my dislike of LE agencies isn't based on a bad experience with a cop due to my own or an officer's bad behavior, but from a moral and philosophical objection to the application of violence against people for unjust reasons.

I have friends in local LE agencies and have met many folks who work LE who seem like really good people. They probably truly believe that they are and that they doing good for the community. They have been fooled just the same as everyone else. As for my friends, the way I balance my like for them with their holding a job I find very morally bankrupt is simple. I just pretend they are really bad at being a cop. It's cognitive dissonance at its finest, I know, but it gets one through the day. Edited March 21, 2015 by Chucktshoes

[rmiddle]

As a general rule I supported LE for a long time after I quit LE. But over time I quit supporting them as much as I once did and started viewing them differently. Now I only help individual officers, never departments, and only those I have come to know. But even then I do not trust those I know because they will turn if it benefits them. I do not trust the average officer to do what is right any more. Spent enough time in LE to know that most, not all, officers are no longer about protecting their communities but controlling or imparting their will upon others. It seems like the younger they are the worse it is. If I met an officer I mind what I say and what I do often ignoring them if I can because they are always looking.

 

There are some great officers out there that do what is right all the time but all it takes is a chance encounter with one of the bad ones to ruin your life. Even if the officer is 100% in the wrong, and you get cleared of everything, it will cost you 10's of thousands of dollars to do so while the officer is rarely held accountable. I hated to see people who were probably innocent plead guilty to a lesser charge or reduced sentence because they could not afford the cost of being exonerated.

 

I will tell you a story about my last interaction with LE. I had someone do something to my wife and I that was against the law. What they did was put our name, our address, my phone number and pictures of my wife from Facebook. They posted it on Craigslist telling people to come to my house at a specified time and rape my wife. Figuring this was a plan by my brother, who tried to kill us before, I contacted local LE for help. I gave them all the information as well as asked for a patrol to be present at the time specified in the ad in case some crazy decided to show up. They made all kinds of excuses why they could not help. I begged for help and they said they would not until after it happened. I told the sheriff that if anyone came in my house and tried to harm my wife I would kill them. Then the sheriff acted like I was a criminal for making that statement. Well after it was obvious they were not going to help I contacted my attorney who then called the sheriff. The attorney told the sheriff this was a credible threat because my brother had tried to kill us in the past but the sheriff still refused to have a patrol in the area. My attorney then told the sheriff he would sue him if anything happened at the time specified.

 

Well a few days after my attorney threatened to sue the department two officers showed up at my house out of the blue. They asked for me and my wife told them I was sleeping. The officers did not leave and had my wife wake me up from a nap and come to the door so they could talk to me. The reason? They were there because they wanted to know what kind of guns I had in the house. This was nothing more than a fishing trip by the officers, at the direction from the sheriff, to try to find a reason to throw me in jail after my attorney threatened to sue the department. This happened about 4 months ago and that is why I will not trust officers to do what is right, especially my local ones.

 

Government is too big and just keeps adding in more and more laws.  Things have gotten so bad that everyone breaks some kind of law it is just a mater of what laws and when.  Combined that with people no longer knowing there neighbors and for the most part no longer talk though problems instead they just call the cop's.  That is the real problem people are depending more and more on the cop's being the ones to determine what is legal and illegal.  

 

That gives a police officer who many times will have very little legal training a huge amount of power  and responsibility however cop's aren't superman and they make mistakes.  Cop's use to admit when they made a mistake but now if they do people see $$$$ signs and sue everyone because of this cop's know when they make a mistake it can very easily cost them there jobs so they try and cover there behinds.  You can see this when people are charged with very subjective charges like failure to obey or resting arrest.  The problem is those subjective charges can cost someone big dollars to fight and even more dollars if in the end they lose.  Making maters worse most people will lose in the end because Jury's are going to trust the cop's word over just about anyone else's and your life will never be the same because someone else made a mistake.  

 

I am not sure the best way to fix this.  One way is for people to stop depending on cops to settle everyday disputes.  Also find a way for cops to admit they made a mistake that doesn't leave everyone open for a law suit but at the same time not requiring someone who is caught up in the mistake having to pay.

 

Thanks

Robert

Edited March 22, 2015 by rmiddle