The Firing Line Forums

Go Back   The Firing Line Forums > The Conference Center > Law and Civil Rights

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old July 11, 2011, 07:03 PM   #576
Eghad
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 28, 2005
Location: Texas
Posts: 6,231
What! Operation Castaway... Honduras.... Guns to MS-13?

Field Offices at Tampa? Houston? and Phoenix? involved in a national program?

Somebody has lost their mind at the ATF.

http://www.examiner.com/gun-rights-i...ns-to-honduras

http://sipseystreetirregulars.blogsp...k-guns-to.html
__________________
Have a nice day at the range

NRA Life Member
Eghad is offline  
Old July 11, 2011, 07:59 PM   #577
csmsss
Senior Member
 
Join Date: October 24, 2008
Location: Orange, TX
Posts: 2,986
Nobody's lost their minds as far as I can see. They are just doing what any anti-gun ideologue would do if told he/she is free to do pretty much as he/she chooses and that, far from facing prosecution for criminal misconduct, will receive promotions for it. It all makes sense if you get your mind around the concept that DOJ and BATFE feel they are entirely immune from any negative consequences that might arise from criminal, anticonstitutional conduct.
csmsss is offline  
Old July 11, 2011, 08:09 PM   #578
Dead
Senior Member
 
Join Date: June 5, 2000
Location: AoW Land, USA
Posts: 1,934
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2011...border-states/

It is starting again. Why "watch" buyers when they already let 10's of thousands of guns walk? What is the point?
__________________
Dead [Black Ops]
www.therallypoint.org
Dead is offline  
Old July 11, 2011, 10:21 PM   #579
BillCA
Senior Member
 
Join Date: November 28, 2004
Location: Silicon Valley, Ca
Posts: 7,087
Quote:
Originally Posted by csmsss
Sure, they may throw a few low-level BATF underlings under the bus should the need arise, but it will never reach any of the key authorizing figures - and even if it does, Obama will whip out his pardon book and make everything go away. But the odds of even that occurring are infinitesimally low, since it is only his own DOJ that can bring federal charges.

They have obviously calculated (correctly, in my opinion), that any fallout from this will not reach critical mass, and certainly not by the 2012 elections. So they're simply, in effect, going to run out the clock for another sixteen months.
Maybe not, but that tactic might be in their playbook. But here's why I think that's a bad plan...

Melson has already said DOJ is obstructing, not just stonewalling. It'll be interesting to see if his July 13 "public appearance" statements are toned down or if DOJ tries to hold him back from repeating that. In any case, Issa has enough to move for contempt charges against Holder and DOJ.

If DOJ refuses to let Congress use an independent special prosecutor to investigate it'll look even more like obstruction and stonewalling. That'll be fodder during the elections. Especially if Mexico ups the ante by screaming for a full-scale investigation.

The lid is coming off as evidenced by the Honduras angle. This negates any chance of this being "localized" to Phoenix, which in turn implicates much higher pay-grades to approve a national program that works with multiple international tentacles. The implication is that it involves State, DHS via Customs and perhaps the USCG along with the FBI.

The Tampa-Honduras program netted a "big fish" in September 2010, so it seems unlikely Holder and/or Asst. A.G. Lanny Breuer can claim "ignorance" of the program or its methods. Especially in light of their attempt to garner lots of media attention on it.

There are too many leaks in the ship to keep trying to tow it to shallower 2012 waters. There's the risk of an unseen torpedo from another whistleblower or another high-profile shooting with a Fast & Furious gun on our side of the border.
__________________
BillCA in CA (Unfortunately)
BillCA is offline  
Old July 11, 2011, 10:31 PM   #580
jimbob86
Senior Member
 
Join Date: October 4, 2007
Location: All the way to NEBRASKA
Posts: 7,038
Quote:
What! Operation Castaway... Honduras.... Guns to MS-13?

Field Offices at Tampa? Houston? and Phoenix? involved in a national program?

Somebody has lost their mind at the ATF.
Nope. I'd wager it was several somebodies (or more), and it was not their minds that they lost, but their souls that they sold.
__________________
TheGolden Rule of Tool Use: "If you don't know what you are doing, DON'T."

http://nefirearm.com/
jimbob86 is offline  
Old July 11, 2011, 11:15 PM   #581
C0untZer0
Junior member
 
Join Date: April 21, 2011
Location: Illinois
Posts: 4,555
I don't understand how the BATFE can just arbitrarily tell gun shops that they have to report people who purchase more than 2 rifles in a 5 day period.

I'm not necesarily against the law but in any other business the governement can't just do that. The police can't go to a car dealership and say - "You have to start reporting anyone who purchases more than 2 vehicles in 5 days."

Doesn't there have to be a law regarding that?

Also, how can they impose that on gun stores? The gun stores are supossed to do what? - eye-ball their paperwork every day at the close of business and try to match names with the preceeding 5 days?

I don't know what the profit on these weapons are but it would seem to be a relatively simple thing to do to just move 1 state north to make the purchases.

This seems to me to be an effort on the part of the BATFE to divert attention away from Fast and Furious and make it look like they're actually trying to track down criminals and not trying to bolster statistics for stricter gun control.

I totally don't understand this. BATFE has the power to make gun stores do this stuff with no law - no regulation?
C0untZer0 is offline  
Old July 11, 2011, 11:23 PM   #582
jimpeel
Senior Member
 
Join Date: October 11, 1999
Location: Longmont, CO, USA
Posts: 4,488
Quote:
Originally Posted by C0untZer0 View Post
Doesn't there have to be a law regarding that?
Firearms are unique when it comes to governmental restraint of trade. Don't expect to see any anti-trust suits being hoisted anytime soon.
__________________
Gun Control: The premise that a woman found in an alley, raped and strangled with her own pantyhose, is morally superior to allowing that same woman to defend her life with a firearm.

"Science is built up with facts, as a house is with stones. But a collection of facts is no more a science than a heap of stones is a house." - Jules Henri Poincare

"Three thousand people died on Sept. 11 because eight pilots were killed"
-- former Northwest Airlines pilot Stephen Luckey
jimpeel is offline  
Old July 12, 2011, 01:00 AM   #583
Tom Servo
Staff
 
Join Date: September 27, 2008
Location: Foothills of the Appalachians
Posts: 10,524
Quote:
I'm not necesarily against the law but in any other business the governement can't just do that. The police can't go to a car dealership and say - "You have to start reporting anyone who purchases more than 2 vehicles in 5 days."

Doesn't there have to be a law regarding that?
For pistols, there is. It's 18 U.S.C. 923(g)(3)(B). There is no such provision for rifles, however.

Quote:
Also, how can they impose that on gun stores? The gun stores are supossed to do what? - eye-ball their paperwork every day at the close of business and try to match names with the preceeding 5 days?
Basically, yes. It's a hassle. As you mentioned, not all multiple gun purchases are done in the same sitting. So, if John Smith buys a gun from Tom on Monday morning, then Dick logs out the gun and files the form on Tuesday, there's a chance that Harry won't know it's a multiple sale when he's selling John a gun on the evening shift Thursday.

The form itself is a hassle, and it has to be mailed to the local sheriff as well. Of all the multiple handgun sale reports filed, very few of them are for anything suspicious. Anyone who knows about the law can simply spread their purchases out over multiple stores or a longer timeframe.
__________________
Sometimes it’s nice not to destroy the world for a change.
--Randall Munroe
Tom Servo is offline  
Old July 12, 2011, 01:45 AM   #584
jimpeel
Senior Member
 
Join Date: October 11, 1999
Location: Longmont, CO, USA
Posts: 4,488
The NRA has stated they will sue if these new rules are imposed on firrearms dealers.

SOURCE

Quote:
July 11, 2011

NRA: We'll sue over new reporting rule for multiple gun buys

The National Rifle Association is vowing to sue the Obama administration after it announced Monday that it will begin to require gun dealers in four border states to send reports to the government following multiple sales of some semi-automatic longarms.

<MORE>
__________________
Gun Control: The premise that a woman found in an alley, raped and strangled with her own pantyhose, is morally superior to allowing that same woman to defend her life with a firearm.

"Science is built up with facts, as a house is with stones. But a collection of facts is no more a science than a heap of stones is a house." - Jules Henri Poincare

"Three thousand people died on Sept. 11 because eight pilots were killed"
-- former Northwest Airlines pilot Stephen Luckey
jimpeel is offline  
Old July 12, 2011, 05:37 AM   #585
chucky222
Senior Member
 
Join Date: January 30, 2009
Location: East Alabama
Posts: 166
Holder bragged about Operation Gunrunner in 2009

From the Washington Examiner Yesterday:

"The problem with Holder’s feigned ignorance is that he gave a speech in Cuernavaca, Mexico, on April 2, 2009, in which he boasted about Operation 'Gunrunner” and told Mexican authorities of everything he was doing to insure its success."

http://washingtonexaminer.com/blogs/...gunrunner-2009
__________________
I also have Fire Extinguishers, hope I never need those either.
chucky222 is offline  
Old July 12, 2011, 06:15 AM   #586
csmsss
Senior Member
 
Join Date: October 24, 2008
Location: Orange, TX
Posts: 2,986
Quote:
Melson has already said DOJ is obstructing, not just stonewalling. It'll be interesting to see if his July 13 "public appearance" statements are toned down or if DOJ tries to hold him back from repeating that. In any case, Issa has enough to move for contempt charges against Holder and DOJ.
Congress has no authority to bring any criminal charges against anyone. All any member of Congress can do is refer potential charges to....DOJ.

Quote:
If DOJ refuses to let Congress use an independent special prosecutor to investigate it'll look even more like obstruction and stonewalling. That'll be fodder during the elections. Especially if Mexico ups the ante by screaming for a full-scale investigation.
DOJ has no need to "refuse to let Congress use an independent special prosecutor", because Congress doesn't have the authority to call for a special prosecutor in the first place. The law enabling this expired years ago. As I said above, criminal charges have to be referred to....DOJ.

Quote:
The lid is coming off as evidenced by the Honduras angle. This negates any chance of this being "localized" to Phoenix, which in turn implicates much higher pay-grades to approve a national program that works with multiple international tentacles. The implication is that it involves State, DHS via Customs and perhaps the USCG along with the FBI.

The Tampa-Honduras program netted a "big fish" in September 2010, so it seems unlikely Holder and/or Asst. A.G. Lanny Breuer can claim "ignorance" of the program or its methods. Especially in light of their attempt to garner lots of media attention on it.

There are too many leaks in the ship to keep trying to tow it to shallower 2012 waters. There's the risk of an unseen torpedo from another whistleblower or another high-profile shooting with a Fast & Furious gun on our side of the border.
These things are all true, but irrelevant if there is no prosecutorial body with the authority, jurisdiction, and motivation to pursue charges. The single prosecutorial body with the authority and jurisdiction to do so (DOJ) will never do so because of an irredeemable conflict of interest and the impotence of congressional oversight.

Yes...they are going to get away with it, and there's nothing anyone can do about it if the WH and DOJ choose to continue stonewalling and obstructing and are willing to absorb what limited heat might arise from the media. None of this is going to affect the support for the WH amongst its political base.
csmsss is offline  
Old July 12, 2011, 06:39 AM   #587
C0untZer0
Junior member
 
Join Date: April 21, 2011
Location: Illinois
Posts: 4,555
It seems like a potential PR hey day for BATFE if the NRA sues them over the request to report multiple weapons purchases, but I'm not sure BATFE is adept enough to take advantage of it. If they're as incompetent in the PR department as they are in other areas then they might not be able to take advantage of it. On the other hand, there are other groups that can make NRA look obstructionist and anti-law enforcement.
C0untZer0 is offline  
Old July 12, 2011, 07:18 AM   #588
Bartholomew Roberts
Senior Member
 
Join Date: June 12, 2000
Location: Texas and Oklahoma area
Posts: 5,718
Quote:
Congress has no authority to bring any criminal charges against anyone. All any member of Congress can do is refer potential charges to....DOJ.
Not true. Congress may charge any civil officer of the United States (including the Attorney General and/or lower level DOJ staff) directly via impeachment. The House issues the charges and the Senate would hold the trial. Given how carefully Issa and Grassley have been proceeding (and working in concert), I wouldn't be too quick to dismiss that outcome.

And we need to be careful about confusing knowledge of Gunrunner with knowledge of gun walking. Gunrunner has been a program since 2006 and Fast and Furious was one of many of a subset of Gunwalker programs.

As for the NRA suing them, clearly the Administration wanted and expected that since the NRA had already informed them they would challenge the multiple sales requirement. The Administration appears to think this will help their narrative, though how they could think that I can't imagine.
Bartholomew Roberts is offline  
Old July 12, 2011, 07:39 AM   #589
Baba Louie
Senior Member
 
Join Date: September 23, 2001
Posts: 1,497
Quote:
Yes...they are going to get away with it, and there's nothing anyone can do about it if the WH and DOJ choose to continue stonewalling and obstructing and are willing to absorb what limited heat might arise from the media. None of this is going to affect the support for the WH amongst its political base.
Could not the affected States Attorneys General (AZ, TX and FL) join together to bring this to DOJs front door via some "legal instrument"? ala 1st Amendment right to petition governmental redress of grievance?

Or is this too a moot point anymore? Should said "petition" be ignored, then could one safely say/assume the COTUS and/or BORs is dead and tyranny has taken hold with this administration; whether the tyranny thing is true or not the 1st Amendment, being blatently ignored might gather some media attention once they see their Ox being gored as not good for their business? (I think that started out as a question). Trashing both the 1st and the 2nd... should that occur... I obviously dunno, just asking myself how close this nation is to that point.
Baba Louie is offline  
Old July 12, 2011, 08:33 AM   #590
jimbob86
Senior Member
 
Join Date: October 4, 2007
Location: All the way to NEBRASKA
Posts: 7,038
I see that AOL.com has put the Foxnews story about Agent Terry's kin getting set to sue the .gov on their front page this AM.

I hope they do.

http://www.foxnews.com/us/2011/07/11...1_lnk3%7C77301
__________________
TheGolden Rule of Tool Use: "If you don't know what you are doing, DON'T."

http://nefirearm.com/
jimbob86 is offline  
Old July 12, 2011, 08:39 AM   #591
csmsss
Senior Member
 
Join Date: October 24, 2008
Location: Orange, TX
Posts: 2,986
Bartholomew,

Impeachment is NOT a criminal proceeding. It is only a means of booting people from elective or appointed office and carries no further sanction than that. Further, it requires not just an impeachment vote in the House but a vote to convict in a Senate controlled by the WH's own party. It's a nonstarter and won't dissuade this administration in the slightest. The fact remains that there is absolutely no prosecutorial impediment to the WH and DOJ doing exactly what they want to do, laws be damned. There is no credible penalty they need worry about - and they know it, and are operating under that implicit understanding.

Last edited by csmsss; July 12, 2011 at 08:47 AM.
csmsss is offline  
Old July 12, 2011, 09:00 AM   #592
Micahweeks
Senior Member
 
Join Date: February 21, 2009
Location: North Mississippi
Posts: 850
Just in case you were looking for some light reading on the issue...

michellemalkin.com/2011/07/12/dojs-fast-and-furious-head-fake/

Michelle Making wrote a pretty good article on the current state of things.
Micahweeks is offline  
Old July 12, 2011, 09:49 AM   #593
Bartholomew Roberts
Senior Member
 
Join Date: June 12, 2000
Location: Texas and Oklahoma area
Posts: 5,718
Quote:
Impeachment is NOT a criminal proceeding. It is only a means of booting people from elective or appointed office and carries no further sanction than that.
Impeachment disqualifies people from ever again working for the United States government or receiving pension and related benefits. In the case of DOJ staff, it would probably lead to disbarrment as well. It may not be a criminal sanction; but it isn't a slap on the wrist either.

Quote:
Further, it requires not just an impeachment vote in the House but a vote to convict in a Senate controlled by the WH's own party.
Yes. The Senate just convicted Judge Thomas Porteus in 2010 - and after the DOJ declined to bring charges against him no less. The vote was dramatically against him.

Quote:
It's a nonstarter and won't dissuade this administration in the slightest.
I disagree. I don't think the Administration wants an impeachment trial in the Senate (it would be only the 63rd such trial in our history). Basically, you would be forcing every Senator to stand up and make a guilty/not-guilty vote right before the 2012 elections - and the Democrats already have 20 seats of the 33 up in 2012. If they are willing to go to that length to save DOJ staffers when there is sufficient evidence to charge them with a crime, I would be more than happy to accomodate them.

Quote:
The fact remains that there is absolutely no prosecutorial impediment to the WH and DOJ doing exactly what they want to do, laws be damned.
Yes there is an impediment - time. At some point in the future, there is going to be a different Attorney General in the White House. A conspiracy to obstruct justice is a continuing crime and the statute of limitations on it does not start to run until the last act committed in furtherance of the conspiracy is committed. If crimes have been committed, the people involved will not be able to hide under the aegis of the current Attorney General forever - in fact, they'd probably be better off being convicted now while they might still be pardoned or receive a light sentence.
Bartholomew Roberts is offline  
Old July 12, 2011, 10:56 AM   #594
C0untZer0
Junior member
 
Join Date: April 21, 2011
Location: Illinois
Posts: 4,555
Feds to face lawsuit for fast & furious?

http://video.foxnews.com/v/104754887...urious-lawsuit

Possible criminal and civil action.
C0untZer0 is offline  
Old July 12, 2011, 01:28 PM   #595
HarrySchell
Senior Member
 
Join Date: March 30, 2007
Location: South CA
Posts: 559
It will be interesting to see if Calderon gets on his pony and rides after anybody to hold them accountable. He and Obama are fellow travelers and he will have to consider the wishes of whichever cartel has paid him off to hassle their competition.

This thing could be a major dump on Obama if offering up Holder's head isn't done the right way. I dunno that Calderon wants to see that. Our porous border is very important to Calderon to help him avoid addressing economic opportunity and social problems in Mexico, among other things.

And as for Obama talking about his "under the radar" gun control efforts, I don't think he is bright enough to keep his mouth shut about a covert gun walking op, too good a story as it makes him sound like a secret agent man. He is worried, methinks, about his clear failures to deliver and lead. He will do anything to promote himself, even make hints about stuff that needs to be kept real quiet.

If F+F had worked as the savants predicted, the victory laps would be endless, as would be his claims to authorship.
__________________
Loyalty to petrified opinions never yet broke a chain or freed a human soul in this world — and never will.
— Mark Twain
HarrySchell is offline  
Old July 12, 2011, 07:30 PM   #596
csmsss
Senior Member
 
Join Date: October 24, 2008
Location: Orange, TX
Posts: 2,986
Quote:
Impeachment disqualifies people from ever again working for the United States government or receiving pension and related benefits. In the case of DOJ staff, it would probably lead to disbarrment as well. It may not be a criminal sanction; but it isn't a slap on the wrist either.
The people running this show are playing for keeps...right now. They're not worried about not working for the government again - they're hard at work doing as much damage as possible as quickly as they can, especially now that this is in public and there's no longer any benefit from concealing their actions. Most of them are attorneys who will have no trouble whatsoever finding highly lucrative partnership offers from fancy law firms and lobbyist organizations.

Quote:
Yes. The Senate just convicted Judge Thomas Porteus in 2010 - and after the DOJ declined to bring charges against him no less. The vote was dramatically against him.
And that matters how, exactly? Are you really suggesting the Senate would treat a sitting President and U.S. Attorney General in the same manner?

Quote:
I disagree. I don't think the Administration wants an impeachment trial in the Senate (it would be only the 63rd such trial in our history). Basically, you would be forcing every Senator to stand up and make a guilty/not-guilty vote right before the 2012 elections - and the Democrats already have 20 seats of the 33 up in 2012. If they are willing to go to that length to save DOJ staffers when there is sufficient evidence to charge them with a crime, I would be more than happy to accomodate them.
First, I don't think they are worried about an impeachment trial, because they know the Republicans in the House don't have the stomach for that kind of fight. They tried and lost against Clinton (and lost HUGE counts of seats as a result), and are far too distracted by the national economic issues to invest significant political capital in pursuing impeachment charges on an issue most Americans simply do not understand.

Quote:
Yes there is an impediment - time. At some point in the future, there is going to be a different Attorney General in the White House. A conspiracy to obstruct justice is a continuing crime and the statute of limitations on it does not start to run until the last act committed in furtherance of the conspiracy is committed. If crimes have been committed, the people involved will not be able to hide under the aegis of the current Attorney General forever - in fact, they'd probably be better off being convicted now while they might still be pardoned or receive a light sentence.
Hardly. Not a one of the decision makers has anything whatsoever to worry about. You had better believe that before he leaves office, Obama will make sure each and every one of them has a bright, shiny new pardon in his pocket. They're not worried about any kind of sentence. Their only worries are how they're gonna spend all that money George Soros is going to make sure they receive once they leave their government jobs.
csmsss is offline  
Old July 12, 2011, 07:47 PM   #597
Bartholomew Roberts
Senior Member
 
Join Date: June 12, 2000
Location: Texas and Oklahoma area
Posts: 5,718
Ok, we disagree then.
Bartholomew Roberts is offline  
Old July 12, 2011, 08:02 PM   #598
csmsss
Senior Member
 
Join Date: October 24, 2008
Location: Orange, TX
Posts: 2,986
Yep. Funny thing is I'm pretty sure we're in fundamental agreement about the illegality of all of this.
csmsss is offline  
Old July 12, 2011, 09:12 PM   #599
Standing Wolf
Member in memoriam
 
Join Date: April 26, 2002
Location: Colorado
Posts: 1,649
Quote:
Funny thing is I'm pretty sure we're in fundamental agreement about the illegality of all of this.
Yeah. The powers that be seem determined to leave us less and less room to doubt it.
__________________
No tyrant should ever be allowed to die of natural causes.
Standing Wolf is offline  
Old July 12, 2011, 09:16 PM   #600
jimpeel
Senior Member
 
Join Date: October 11, 1999
Location: Longmont, CO, USA
Posts: 4,488
Quote:
Originally Posted by csmsss View Post
Congress has no authority to bring any criminal charges against anyone. All any member of Congress can do is refer potential charges to....DOJ.
Since this was an international crime, couldn't Interpol be pulled in? Interesting premise if it could work.
__________________
Gun Control: The premise that a woman found in an alley, raped and strangled with her own pantyhose, is morally superior to allowing that same woman to defend her life with a firearm.

"Science is built up with facts, as a house is with stones. But a collection of facts is no more a science than a heap of stones is a house." - Jules Henri Poincare

"Three thousand people died on Sept. 11 because eight pilots were killed"
-- former Northwest Airlines pilot Stephen Luckey
jimpeel is offline  
Reply

Tags
atf , fast and furious

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 04:46 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
This site and contents, including all posts, Copyright © 1998-2014 S.W.A.T. Magazine
Copyright Complaints: Please direct DMCA Takedown Notices to the registered agent: thefiringline.com
Contact Us
Page generated in 0.42162 seconds with 10 queries