95 replies to this topic

[spinax489]

Prayers and condolences to the agent's family, friends, and colleagues..

[Devil Dog]

Bumping this up as it has been a few months, has anybody heard anything on the state of hardship transfers? I know of 4 people who put in for hardships and were denied just before the holidays. I heard that there were some new DAD's, so maybe they just denied everybody without even looking at the situations? Pretty frustrating as people were getting them approved at the end of FY 11.

[VINCENT A CEFALU]

It is with great sadness that we pay tribute to a true hero and ATF Agent. Yesterday Special Agent Capano while off duty and out with his family, observed an armed robbery of a pharmacy occur. Special Agent Capano knew what to do and did what hundreds of ATF Agent across the country do everyday. He said "NOT ON MY WATCH". Special Agent Capano confronted the armed perpetrator and was killed during the ensuing attempt to arrest the violator. We offer our shared sadness and condolences to the family, offer our prayers and gratitude for his heroic actions. By his actions, there is one less violent predator in this world who can no longer hurt anybody else. Our prayers are with Agent Capanos family, and hope they will find comfort in the fact that their father and husband is a true American hero. Semper Fidelis Special Agent John Capano

[Retired and loving it]

You do not need to have worked for ATF to sign this Petition!
This Petition is to help launch an Internal investigation into ATF's complaint system.

Please spread the word!!!

By White House Request

https://wwws.whitehouse.gov/petitions/!/petition/investigate-bureau-alcohol-tobacco-firearms-explosives-offices-eeo-ombudsmans-internal-affairs/BfcYQhmD

DISREGARD, I WAS CONFUSED ON THE FACEBOOK ISSUE -- I FOUND THE SIGN UP INSTRUCTIONS.

Is there a way to "sign" this petition without going through facebook? I'd like to sign but I don't have a facebook account and really don't want open one.

[Jaime3]

You do not need to have worked for ATF to sign this Petition!
This Petition is to help launch an Internal investigation into ATF's complaint system.

Please spread the word!!!

By White House Request

https://wwws.whitehouse.gov/petitions/!/petition/investigate-bureau-alcohol-tobacco-firearms-explosives-offices-eeo-ombudsmans-internal-affairs/BfcYQhmD

[Jaime3]

Another Petition was created.
By request of the White House!

https://wwws.whitehouse.gov/petitions/!/petition/investigate-bureau-alcohol-tobacco-firearms-explosives-offices-eeo-ombudsmans-internal-affairs/BfcYQhmD

[Jaime3]

This Petition is gaining momentum!

After 100 signatures...they are required to act!!!

Keep this Petition alive!!!

And a special "Thank You" to the individuals who have signed...showing you're tired of talking and want action!

[Jaime3]

Thanks Doc!

Everytime someone signs the petition, the hit goes to the White House, Senate, etc.
When the petition reaches over 100 signatures, action must be taken.
When you go on the site, look at who we are petitioning and it will give you a full list.


So please, get the word out! Post on Facebook, Twitter, etc. but just get the word out because we need Reform!


http://www.change.org/petitions/the-bureau-of-atf-help-us-stop-the-professional-bullies-from-within




Also note, you can hide your name from being displayed.
Here is the information sent to me. Read below.


There are a few things people can do to make sure their names do not show up publicly.

Signers can set all future petitions they sign to "private" which will ensure that their name does not show up on petitions. They can do this by un-checking the box on any petition page which says "Allow my signature to be seen publicly."

Another thing they can do is set their profile to private, as this will stop their name from showing up on supported causes and showing up in web searches: Visit http://www.change.or...privacy_profile once you are logged in.

[Doc Holiday]

If you want accountability, please take the time to electronically sign this petition.

As promised, the Petition is complete!
On this Petition, I think I covered all bases.

Please post on Facebook, Twitter, etc. Wherever you can post this helps!!!
This is of great importance!!!

http://www.change.org/petitions/the-bureau-of-atf-help-us-stop-the-professional-bullies-from-within





Also note, you can hide your name from being displayed.
Here is the information sent to me. Read below.


There are a few things people can do to make sure their names do not show up publicly.

Signers can set all future petitions they sign to "private" which will ensure that their name does not show up on petitions. They can do this by un-checking the box on any petition page which says "Allow my signature to be seen publicly."

Another thing they can do is set their profile to private, as this will stop their name from showing up on supported causes and showing up in web searches: Visit http://www.change.or...privacy_profile once you are logged in.

[Jaime3]

As promised, the Petition is complete!
On this Petition, I think I covered all bases.

Please post on Facebook, Twitter, etc. Wherever you can post this helps!!!
This is of great importance!!!

http://www.change.org/petitions/the-bureau-of-atf-help-us-stop-the-professional-bullies-from-within





Also note, you can hide your name from being displayed.
Here is the information sent to me. Read below.


There are a few things people can do to make sure their names do not show up publicly.

Signers can set all future petitions they sign to "private" which will ensure that their name does not show up on petitions. They can do this by un-checking the box on any petition page which says "Allow my signature to be seen publicly."

Another thing they can do is set their profile to private, as this will stop their name from showing up on supported causes and showing up in web searches: Visit http://www.change.or...privacy_profile once you are logged in.

[cms81586]

First off I'm new here and wanted to stop in and say hello as well as ask a question.

Recently a few Reps and Senators sent correspondance to Acting Deputy Director William Hoover on behalf of the suppressor industry inquiring about the current wait time for Form 4 approval and what can be done to streamline the process. It got me curious as to what part of the process actually takes so long. I believe wait times from sending out Form 4's to getting the stamp are right around 5 months currently. Can someone explain what actually goes on over on the ATF's end? As I understand there's only a few examiners and there were some reassignments recently. Any help is greatly appreciated. Thanks!

CMS

[mickymouse]

Just because I know who the snakes are doesn't mean I am curled up next to them. I just prefer to know who to watch out for. As for my name, I'll put it out here just as soon as everyone who has an opinion other than yours is allowed to post without being threatened and intimidated. You talk about the managers at ATF. Honey, you obviously took a page right out of their play book with your comment to me about Madea. Hope you are really proud of yourself.

[mickymouse]

At BeenThereDoneThat -- I am so glad that He (The Ombudsman) who is actually a SHE could help you. So really, are we talking about the same person?. If so, maybe you didn't speak with the Ombudsman herself and your basis for your statement may not be correct. Just saying. And if it was years ago and it was a he, perhaps you shouldn't judge someone without actual personal information.

And yes, Sandy, you are right that alot of times agents/employess are denied hardships and it does cause all kinds of issues. I did not say that it didn't happen. What I said, and if you go back and read it, was that the Ombudsman was the greatest advocate in the Hardship Board and had on numerous occasions gotten hardships approved when the board was not being fair. It is not always possible to do this.

And, by the way, I don't care what Madea has to say. I've been working for this agency for years. I know all the damn snakes, many of them personally. I don't need Madea to tell me who they are. So don't threaten m ~~ I'm not afraid.

Go do your research. Look at what the function of the Office of the Ombudsman is. It is not to solve anybody's problems. It is faciliate and try to help find mutual solutions. They can't fix employee's problems. That is not their mandate. Stop trying to act like it is. Go to the Ombudsman page and read what their function is. That is all I am saying. You are spewing misinformation to people that is not correct. You shouldn't comment on things you don't know.

I don't care what your personal situation is. I know what is going on now, what went on years ago and what will probably continue to happen with this agency if we aren't sucked up by another agency or downright disbanded.

[VINCENT A CEFALU]

I reported the Ombudsman's abuses several years ago to the Director and DD Hoover. I was cautioned about a chain of command violation. I had sent my complaint and concerns to the Ombudsman's Office, and shortly thereafter, my attorney got an email referencing the exact information FROM RACHEL BOUMAN of ATF Chief Counsels Office. That's the fact Jack. Or should I say Micky.

The ATF Ombudsman works for ATF. I found out the hard way!!! I reached out to the ATF Ombudsman several times. The last time, the Ombudsman got involved in trying to "help"me, and when he communicated and involved upper ATF Mgt and Legal Counsel, he refused to provide statements during an investigation and/or trial with the defense that he had protection under the "No Fear Act". YES YOU SAW THAT CORRECT!!!!! Good thing I kept a copy of all his emails to me, because I would have looked like an idiot, or worse, a liar.

So, don't think that when you contact the Ombudsman that you are in good hands. Proceed with extreme caution, or not all with ATF Ombudsman.

[VINCENT A CEFALU]

Mickey,
Your opinions are heeded by those who asked I'm sure. For the record, the abuses, transgressions and violations of confidentiality and neutrality by the Ombudsmans Office are NOT 25 years old. They have filtered or forwarded information to Chief counsel when all they had to say was, we cant get involved at this point. They have conspired with CCO and field managers, who defend their corrupt actions and ultimately attack field employees. That is NOT the intent of the Ombudsmans Office. As for the litigation foolishness, is it your contention that hundreds of ATF complainants are wrong? That the NO FEAR act statistics ATF reports are wrong? The millions being wasted on disputes that are immediately forwarded to COO to go on the attack of our own employees, with a mentality that our revered management is NEVER wrong? I'm glad you or whoever HAD a decent experience with the Ombudsman's office but their credibility is lost. Virtually EVERY litigation can be tracked to a broked WB, EEOC and Grievance process, narcissistic management mentality and a Chief counsels Office willing to defend the MOST outrageous acts of managers. That's the fact. To create litigation's and then say "we cant get involved now is just an excuse to Chill the field from exposing the corruption that has festered in our senior leadership. And If you chose to speak for me or the Ombudsman's office, speak publicly and candidly. My litigation should have and COULD have been resolved with a handshake, and then the lies began. I am certain since you are so knowledgeable about my case, you are aware that ATF Counsel Rachel Bouman with complete authority to do so, ended my case, agreed to my settlement terms and the matter was over. NO GRAY AREA. She requested 10 days to ink it and get signatures. That was 4 years ago and after my attorney got the email they changed their mind. Discovery closed a few weeks later in my case. And unless(and perhaps you were) here 25 years ago, don't attack what Sandy and the rest went thru. They at least stood tall. Casali and Klepfield, Davis and Robertson AND Garcia Simpson and the Waco Whistleblowers were TERRORIZED by Chief counsels Office and senior executives in this Bureau and their lives were destroyed. And news FLASH, THEY DIDN'T ANYTHING WRONG.

The person I have suggested DD contact is someone who probably knows more about the office of the ombuddy than anyone around today. Both it's history and where it is currently. I have no doubt there have been good people in that office who have helped employees get transfers, however we all know there is never consistency within ATF. Not 25 years ago and not today. Why would anyone go blindly into anything with ATF when there's someone who can tell them where the snakes are. Or are you about to tell us that ATF has no snakes?
And btw - my anger does not stem from what ATF did to me 25 years ago, but to what they are doing right now to so many. And I'll tell you like I do everyone else who blows in here under a cartoon character's name to spew, post under you real name, and I will gladly get you examples where transfers were denied that should not have been, and the subsequent trauma it caused to the employee.

[BeenThereDoneThat]

Wow, just, wow....Sandy, did you ever consider that the person giving the advice may just actually know of what they are writing and actually have experience with the hardship board before you trashed their information. Guess not. I guess it is always wise to just give give your side and not have anyone go and find out information for themselves. Really, would a phone call to the office by the individual hurt them? I think not, especially in the early stages before submitting their application for a hardship. I actually think it would be helpful. The Ombudsman's Office is well versed on hardship transfers and what they look for and can help them with guidance. Let them find out for themselves if the Ombudsman can assist in giving them help before you tear that office apart with old information and your hatred. That is always the best way to handle things. People like you amaze me. Just because you may have had a bad experience 25 years ago when this person was not the Ombudsman and Vince may had a bad experience because he was in Litigation and the Ombudsman was not in a position to help does not mean the Ombudsman is the problem. Obviously you do not know what the role of the Ombudsman is because if you did you wouldn't be sitting on your high horse running your mouth. Perhaps what you should do is research the role of the Ombudsman office and what they are and are not allowed to do. Educate yourself. Their role is not to change things. Their role is to try and faciliate changes which is sometimes IMPOSSIBLE with ATF management, as you and everyone else knows but that does not mean the Ombudsman herself or her office does not care or does not take the job seriously, they do and they try very hard to help the employees.

The ATF Ombudsman works for ATF. I found out the hard way!!! I reached out to the ATF Ombudsman several times. The last time, the Ombudsman got involved in trying to "help"me, and when he communicated and involved upper ATF Mgt and Legal Counsel, he refused to provide statements during an investigation and/or trial with the defense that he had protection under the "No Fear Act". YES YOU SAW THAT CORRECT!!!!! Good thing I kept a copy of all his emails to me, because I would have looked like an idiot, or worse, a liar.

So, don't think that when you contact the Ombudsman that you are in good hands. Proceed with extreme caution, or not all with ATF Ombudsman.

[mickymouse]

Wow, just, wow....Sandy, did you ever consider that the person giving the advice may just actually know of what they are writing and actually have experience with the hardship board before you trashed their information. Guess not. I guess it is always wise to just give give your side and not have anyone go and find out information for themselves. Really, would a phone call to the office by the individual hurt them? I think not, especially in the early stages before submitting their application for a hardship. I actually think it would be helpful. The Ombudsman's Office is well versed on hardship transfers and what they look for and can help them with guidance. Let them find out for themselves if the Ombudsman can assist in giving them help before you tear that office apart with old information and your hatred. That is always the best way to handle things. People like you amaze me. Just because you may have had a bad experience 25 years ago when this person was not the Ombudsman and Vince may had a bad experience because he was in Litigation and the Ombudsman was not in a position to help does not mean the Ombudsman is the problem. Obviously you do not know what the role of the Ombudsman is because if you did you wouldn't be sitting on your high horse running your mouth. Perhaps what you should do is research the role of the Ombudsman office and what they are and are not allowed to do. Educate yourself. Their role is not to change things. Their role is to try and faciliate changes which is sometimes IMPOSSIBLE with ATF management, as you and everyone else knows but that does not mean the Ombudsman herself or her office does not care or does not take the job seriously, they do and they try very hard to help the employees.

[Devil Dog]

Devil Dog - I'm going to strongly suggest that you go to the source I gave you before you ever contact the ombudsman's office. That source will be able to tell you exactly what the deal is with names, cases, history, and policy. The more important this transfer is to you, the stronger I suggest going not going anywhere until you know exactly what you're dealing with.

pm sent. thanks

[mickymouse]

In actuality, the Ombudsman office is the BIGGEST advocate for agents and all personnel on the Hardship Board. There have been numerous occasions in which the Hardship Board wanted to deny requests where the Ombudsman's office intervened and really pushed for approval because they felt the Hardship Board was not being fair. So, if you do feel you have a hardship and are looking for advice, please contact the Ombudsmans office as soon as possible. Fortunately this is something they can help you with with. Unfortunately, they cannot help people already involved in litigation and some people do not understand that if you are involved in litigation they can be involved in it. The time to speak with them is before it gets to that point.

[VINCENT A CEFALU]

You could reach out to the senior member of the hardship board to get a copy of a previously submitted successful request to insure you have all the necessary data. I am certain you CAN grieve it above the hardship board if you think there was disparity in the decision. Not that there is any reason at this point to believe that the Ombudsman's Office is much more than a shill for Management or Chief Counsels Office, but you could contact them for any suggestions. If you truly have a hardship and the board, or your managers disregard it for whatever self serving reason, REMEMBER, we DO have Congress' ear and you do have Congressional representation. Hope this helps.

Does anyone out there have experience and knowledge with regards to requesting a transfer for a personal hardship? I have found the order on the ATF Web, and I know that the decision is made by the hardship review panel in DC. I know that whether or not they concur with the request the employee's chain of command up to the SAC are required to forward the memo. If the SAC forwards it but says that he does not concur and it is not supported, how much does that affect the decision of the panel?

If the panel denies the request are there any avenues to appeal that decision?

[Devil Dog]

Not to be flippant about it but, with the current regime, your best bet is to quit and go to work for another LE agency.

The ATF hierachy will do nothing to benefit the average Joe -- only themselves!

I agree ATF management right now does not seem to care about the individual employees. However I know that some people are still getting approved for hardship transfers so you never know...

[Retired and loving it]

Does anyone out there have experience and knowledge with regards to requesting a transfer for a personal hardship? I have found the order on the ATF Web, and I know that the decision is made by the hardship review panel in DC. I know that whether or not they concur with the request the employee's chain of command up to the SAC are required to forward the memo. If the SAC forwards it but says that he does not concur and it is not supported, how much does that affect the decision of the panel?

If the panel denies the request are there any avenues to appeal that decision?

Not to be flippant about it but, with the current regime, your best bet is to quit and go to work for another LE agency.

The ATF hierachy will do nothing to benefit the average Joe -- only themselves!

[Devil Dog]

Does anyone out there have experience and knowledge with regards to requesting a transfer for a personal hardship? I have found the order on the ATF Web, and I know that the decision is made by the hardship review panel in DC. I know that whether or not they concur with the request the employee's chain of command up to the SAC are required to forward the memo. If the SAC forwards it but says that he does not concur and it is not supported, how much does that affect the decision of the panel?

If the panel denies the request are there any avenues to appeal that decision?

[The Shocker]

This thing started to come apart due to "dots connected" and questions raised by Wikileaks and disclosed diplomatic cables.

See Vanderboegh's Sipsey Street Irregulars for more detailed info.

TS

[AnonymousOne]

Hi,

I don't mean to sound condescending, but the way government agencies have been held accountable lately were mainly by Wikileaks. I'm wondering why all of this stuff is in the news.. yet there are no leaks to be found. It seems the world is waiting for some validity. (Or at least, in my digital world)

-Joan

[avatar]

The following was posted today by attorney David T. Hardy on his blog at http://armsandthelaw.com/:

Reports of plans for abolition of BATF

Posted by David Hardy · 1 October 2011 03:28 PM

Report on Townhall.com. Meanwhile, CleanUpATF.org is reporting that the new acting director plans major management shakeups.

The second would be splendid. The first .... "We've decided that Operation Fast and Furious was a murderous disaster that only a lunatic could have created. So we've promoted those who created and pushed it, and now we'll lay off all the agents who weren't involved." Even by DC's rather loose standards of sanity, that's nuts.


Hat tip to alert reader Jim D. ...

NOTE: Here's the article (at http://townhall.com/...n_of_atf/page/2) that attorney Hardy cites:

Bombshell: DOJ Considering Elimination of ATF

Katie Pavlich

News Editor, Townhall

Sep 30, 2011

Multiple sources, including sources from ATF, DOJ and Congressional offices have said there is a white paper circulating within the Department of Justice, outlining the essential elimination of ATF. According to sources, the paper outlines the firing of at least 450 ATF agents in an effort to conduct damage control as Operation Fast and Furious gets uglier and as election day 2012 gets closer. ATF agents wouldn’t be reassigned to other positions, just simply let go. Current duties of ATF, including the enforcement of explosives and gun laws, would be transferred to other agencies, possibly the FBI and the DEA. According to a congressional source, there have been rumblings about the elimination of ATF for quite sometime, but the move would require major political capital to actually happen.

“It’s a serious white paper being circulated, how far they’d get with it I don’t know,” a confidential source said.

After a town hall meeting about Operation Fast and Furious in Tucson, Ariz. on Monday, ATF Whistleblower Vince Cefalu, who has been key in exposing details about Operation Fast and Furious, confirmed the elimination of ATF has been circulating as a serious idea for sometime now and that a white paper outlining the plan does exist.

Sounds great right? Eliminating ATF? But there is more to this story. Remember, low level ATF field agents, like ATF whistleblower John Dodson, were uncomfortable conducting Operation Fast and Furious from the beginning, but were told by high level officials within ATF that if they had a problem with the operation, they could find a job elsewhere.

“Allowing loads of weapons that we knew to be destined for criminals, this was the plan. It was so mandated,” ATF Whistleblower John Dodson said in testimony on Capitol Hill on June 15, 2011.

In fact, not only were the ATF agents forced to carry out the operation, they were told to go against what they had been taught in training.

“This operation, which in my opinion endangered the American public, was orchestrated in conjunction with Assistant U.S. Attorney Emory Hurley. [Emory Hurley is the same Assistant U.S. Attorney who previously prevented agents from using some of the common and accepted law enforcement techniques that are employed elsewhere in the United States to investigate and prosecute gun crimes.] I have read documents that indicate that his boss, U.S. Attorney Dennis Burke, also agreed with the direction of the case,” Special Agent Peter Forcelli said in testimony on Capitol hill on June 15, 2011.

“I recall my first days at the ATF academy, where it was drilled into us as new agents that under no circumstances would any firearms, in any investigation, leave the control of ATF. Instructors stressed that even if a weapon was lost “by accident,” the agent was still subject to termination,” former ATF Attaché to Mexico Darren D. Gil said in testimony on June 15, 2011.

ATF field agents weren’t the problem with Operation Fast and Furious, high ranking officials within ATF and the Department of Justice were and still are. DOJ would eliminate ATF only to take the heat off of the Obama Administration. By eliminating the bureau, it makes it seem like DOJ is taking Operation Fast and Furious so seriously, they decided to “clear out the corruption, clean house,” however, it would only be a distraction away from the people at the top of the investigation. In fact, evidence shows the DOJ has been stonewalling the Oversight Committee investigation into the operation to protect Obama political appointees.

“It was very frustrating to all of us, and it appears thoroughly to us that the Department is really trying to figure out a way to push the information away from their political appointees at the Department,” former ATF Acting Director Kenneth Melson, who has since been moved to a position within DOJ, said of his frustration with the Justice Department’s response to the investigation in transcribed closed door testimony with the Oversight Committee in July 2011.

When I called the Department of Justice last week (five times) to request the white paper and receive a comment surrounding the idea of eliminating ATF, I received the following response: “Everyone is away from their desk right now.”


Up to this point, the Department of Justice has denied all allegations or involvement in Operation Fast and Furious, yet journalists and the House Oversight Committee have proved allegation after allegation to be true. For example, during a Congressional hearing in July, former ATF Special Agent in Charge William Newell, who has since been promoted to a position within the Justice Department, denied that his agency was trafficking guns to Mexico, despite overwhelming evidence and testimony from other ATF agents proving otherwise.

“At no time in our strategy was it to allow guns to be taken to Mexico,” Newell said on July 26, 2011, adding that at no time did his agency allow guns to walk.

We’ve heard this was a low level, “rogue” operation, turns out high level officials in the Justice Department, DEA, FBI, DHS, and even members of the White House national security team knew about Operation Fast and Furious.

Last week, ATF offered 400 agents buy outs to avoid budget cuts and is expecting 250-275 agents to take the offer through Voluntary Early Retirement. These buyouts come at a convenient time for the Justice Department, which can eliminate ATF, then say it’s because of budget cuts, when really, it’s to cover their tracks.

[The Shocker]

We're back to a place where I must cite a "for instance".

For instance. The precise wording of the Law requiring the NICS check, says, quite explicitly, that an FFL can be sanctioned ONLY if they fail to perform the NICS check if the system is up and running.

The NICS checks system have outages quite often, typically on weekends, when FFLs are trying to do business at gun shows. However, FFLs are terrified to fail to perform the NICS check, because they know, no matter what the Law actually says, no matter that they can document that the NICS system was down during that weekend, they know that the ATF will screw them and have the power to revoke their license or devastate them financially with the "economic Waco" that is a criminal defensive effort in Federal Court. All for complying with the Law, as written.

This is the crux of what is wrong with the Bureau.

That is what pisses off most FFL's. They WANT to do the right thing. Catch the bad guys, and help LE any way they can.

Just don't screw with the good guys and make THEM bad guys just because of some power trip you have had since adolescence.

FFL's are the best resource the management of ATF and FBI have. Unfortunately, management completely destroyed their trust.

Attached Files

•  IAMTHELAW.ATF.jpg   37.74KB   5 downloads

[AirtechJr]

That is what pisses off most FFL's. They WANT to do the right thing. Catch the bad guys, and help LE any way they can.

Just don't screw with the good guys and make THEM bad guys just because of some power trip you have had since adolescence.

FFL's are the best resource the management of ATF and FBI have. Unfortunately, management completely destroyed their trust.

[The Shocker]

For now.

I'm sure of one thing, if a licensee thinks something is shady and illegal, like Andre Howard of Lone Wolf, they surely shouldn't call an ATF SA or Supervisor. Look at what it got Howard.

A boatload of trouble and national infamy.

Licensees now know (they should've known it all along) that the ATF will lie in their faces. I've talked to FFLs who get conflicting reports and "laws" being purported by IOIs who are in the same area. If the Industry Ops papershufflers don't know the rules, and it's obvious that SAs and their supervisors will lie their asses off i.e. Howard, MacAllister and Voth, a prudent licensee will direct their inquiries to what they perceive to be a more knowledgable and competent Bureau. Since Chuck Norris is only one man, and can't be everywhere, they'll have to settle for the FBI.

TS

I would not read much into the FBI visiting FFL's. About a year ago they came up with a new program to identify "lone wolf terrorists". They then created a list of characteristics and thought that it would be a good idea to give this list to FFL's and ask that they call if someone is buying a gun(s) that has some of the characteristics. Sounds like the dreaded "profiling" to me. Better not go into a gun store with tattoo's showing and be talking to your buddy about politics. The bureau would have the FFL call them. So, I do not know if our leaders were smart to not have us involved in what can potentially be an s*** storm or should they have insisted that we as an agency should be the point of contact. I know there was a lot of dialog about this and ultimately we stepped away. From my perspective, it was a good decision. Our relationship with the majority of the licensees is excellent and I know that most of them are tossing away whatever the FBI leaves with them and will continue to contact ATF as they always have.

[Patriot]

I would not read much into the FBI visiting FFL's. About a year ago they came up with a new program to identify "lone wolf terrorists". They then created a list of characteristics and thought that it would be a good idea to give this list to FFL's and ask that they call if someone is buying a gun(s) that has some of the characteristics. Sounds like the dreaded "profiling" to me. Better not go into a gun store with tattoo's showing and be talking to your buddy about politics. The bureau would have the FFL call them. So, I do not know if our leaders were smart to not have us involved in what can potentially be an s*** storm or should they have insisted that we as an agency should be the point of contact. I know there was a lot of dialog about this and ultimately we stepped away. From my perspective, it was a good decision. Our relationship with the majority of the licensees is excellent and I know that most of them are tossing away whatever the FBI leaves with them and will continue to contact ATF as they always have.

[The Shocker]

FBI agents have also been calling FFLs in AZ, as recently as 3 weeks ago.

The Agents asked them to be vigilant for straw purchases and transactions which seemed "shady".

One FFL was quoted as asking the FBI agent "You mean like ATF agents buying a dozen AKs with cash?"

The FBI agent chuckled in response. "Yeah, something like that."

Why would the FBI be contacting FFL's in California regarding info on suspected straw purchasers? Numerous dealers have received letters and visits as well.

Agent said there is a "Turf War" going on between the two agencies. FBI insists on being contacted first with any information.

[Retired and loving it]

Maybe this is preseason practice for the FBI. Somewhat related to that, here is a clip from an article on government buyouts. ATF is one the fifth line. Hopefully, none of these buyouts will go to any of the crew who allowed the Fast and Furious disaster to occur.

• Agency Date offered Employees affected
• Agriculture May 2011 544 employees eligible for buyouts; early outs being offered department-wide.
• Air Force August 2011 (employee survey) Officials seek to eliminate 4,000 positions through attrition, a hiring freeze, and buyout and early-out offers. The Materiel Command earlier this year was surveying employee interest in buyouts.
• Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives Sept. 12 - Oct. 14, 2011 400 employees eligible for buyouts/early outs
• Army September 2011 The Materiel Command is offering buyouts to 33 civilian employees as part of the Army's plan to cut 8,700 positions.
• Commerce August 2011 - December 2012 8 different offices
• Education September 2011 - January 2012 12 different offices
• Equal Employment Opportunity Commission No plans to offer buyouts.
• EPA No plans to offer buyouts.
• FAA No decision yet on whether to offer buyouts or early outs. N/A
• Federal Trade Commission May 2011 Agency-wide
• Government Accountability Office August 2011 (sought permission) 56 positions, primarily management level, upper-level analysts and criminal investigators
• Government Printing Office June 2011 (sought permission) Agency-wide, with a target of reducing the workforce by 15 percent.
• Health and Human Services June 2011 (considering) N/A
• HUD Aug. 8, 2011 - Aug. 18, 2011 Office of Field Policy and Management in Region 9
• International Trade Commission No plans currently to offer buyouts
• Justice January 2011 Anti-trust division employees
• Labor Declined to comment.
• Library of Congress Oct. 24, 2011 - Nov. 3, 2011; applications due Oct. 3, 2011 Targeted positions affecting roughly 350 employees
• NASA Through Sept. 28 Marshall Space Flight Center in Alabama is offering buyouts to 120 workers.
• Nuclear Regulatory Commission June 2011 (sought permission) 50 employees
• Postal Service March 2011 7,500 administrative employees
• Small Business Administration No plans to offer buyouts. The agency is considering offering early outs.
• Smithsonian Institution May 16, 2011 - July 22, 2011 Exemptions for animal keepers, electricians, police officers, security guards and veterinary medical officers, and employees paid from private funds.
• Transportation Security Administration Oct. 1, 2011, to Sept. 30, 2013 The Homeland Security Department is seeking authority for early outs.
• USAID No plans to offer early outs or buyouts.

[AirtechJr]

Why would the FBI be contacting FFL's in California regarding info on suspected straw purchasers? Numerous dealers have received letters and visits as well.

Agent said there is a "Turf War" going on between the two agencies. FBI insists on being contacted first with any information.

[avatar]

There has been talk of such a report for some time now, and it probably exists in some form. It's not like the topic hasn't been discussed, so it would not be surprising that somebody wrote something up. It is my impression that the pending loss of some 400 or more ATF positions is related to transfer of some of ATF's Explosives functions to the FBI, something that has long been in the works. It is not my impression that this is related to Fast and Furious.

But with respect, I believe you should also consider more tangible things like Appropriations language, and the fact that neither the House nor the Senate Committees on Appropriation have raised any issues about abolishing ATF. The Explosives component has been a matter of controversy with the FBI, but that situation was finally recently resolved.

Consider Senate Report No. 112-78, which accompanies the recent Senate-passed Justice appropriations bill. It contains no language about abolishing or reorganizing ATF or even studying that. It does mention Fast & Furious, but a read on the language indicates the Committee is a lot more interested in things like ATF developing NIBIN. You can see the entire report at http://www.gpo.gov/f...-112srpt78.pdf; the Appropriations language for ATF is on pages 59 and 60, and I've copied it here in its entirety.

Reading stuff like this might make your eyes bleed, and seem boring as all getout, but it is in fact something factual and a lot more reliable source of information than chatter about a White Paper making the rounds. Keep in mind that ONLY the Congress can disband an agency. If you look at any appropriations bill, you will see language that makes it illegal to use any of the appropriated funds to move ATF's function to some other agency.

There's no doubt ATF is experiencing profoundly difficult times, and that the appointment of yet another part-time Acting Director sends a bad message, but I would urge you and others to spend more time reading things like this Appropriations report and learning more about what Appropriators are doing about ATF. You will note that the Senate bill, unlike the House appropriations bill, contains no riders to prohibit the use of appropriated funds to implement the multiple sales of rifles reporting requirement, or aspects of the ATF study on the importability of certain shotguns. These things will be hammered out in Conference, and a clean bill will be established and then voted on by the entire Congress.

Please take the time to read this report, and think about how ATF staff can help the Congress/Committee do what it wants to do. ATF's performance in this respect is what the focus of the Appropriations bill is on, and recognize that Appropriations is not a program oversight committee. ATF is most properly overseen by the House and Senate Committees on the Judiciary, and that is where action (or not) will ultimately originate regarding ATF's functions.

BUREAU OF ALCOHOL, TOBACCO, FIREARMS AND EXPLOSIVES SALARIES AND EXPENSES:
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Appropriations, 2011 ........................................................................... $1,112,542,000
Budget estimate, 2012 .........................................................................$1,147,295,000
Committee recommendation ................................................................$1,090,292,000

The Committee’s recommendation provides $1,090,292,000 for the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives [ATF]. The recommendation is $22,250,000 below the fiscal year 2011 enacted level and $57,003,000 below the budget request. The ATF’s mission is to reduce violent crime, prevent terrorism, and protect the public. ATF reduces the criminal use of firearms and illegal firearms trafficking, and assists other Federal, State, and local law enforcement agencies in reducing crime and violence. ATF investigates bombing and arson incidents and provides for public safety by reducing the criminal misuse of and trafficking in explosives, combating acts of arson and arson-for-profit schemes, and removing safety hazards caused by improper and unsafe storage of explosive materials.

United States-Mexico Firearms Trafficking.—The Committee continues to support ATF’s varied efforts to combat weapon trafficking on the border. While the Committee is concerned by allegations that ATF may have mismanaged a U.S.-Mexico border operation known as Fast and Furious, the Committee believes that the Justice Department’s Office of Inspector General, to which the investigation of this matter has been referred by the Attorney General, will fulfill its oversight duties by conducting a thorough investigation.

The Committee also notes that Fast and Furious is but a small part of ATF’s extensive operations along the Southwest border and should not detract from the Bureau’s efforts to protect Americans from illegal firearms trafficking, gun violence, and parallel drug and human trafficking across the U.S.-Mexico border and into the Nation’s interior.

Beginning in fiscal year 2012 and thereafter, the ATF shall provide the Committee with annual data on the number of firearms recovered by the Government of Mexico and traced through ATF that were manufactured in or imported into the United States prior to being recovered in Mexico. Additionally, beginning in fiscal year 2012 and thereafter, the ATF shall provide the Committee with annual data on the total number of firearms recovered by the Government of Mexico and traced through ATF.

Violent Crime Impact Teams.—The Committee continues to support the ATF’s Violent Crime Impact Team [VCIT] initiative to pursue violent criminals and reduce the occurrence of homicides and firearms-related violent crime through the use of geographic targeting, proactive investigation, and prosecution of those responsible. The VCIT uses a multi-agency approach and works closely with State and local law enforcement to identify, target, disrupt, arrest, and prosecute violent criminals.

Conversion of Records.—The Committee recognizes the need for TF to complete the conversion of tens of thousands of existing Federal firearms dealer out-of-business records from film to digital images at the ATF National Tracing Center [NTC]. Once the out-of-business records are fully converted, search time for these records will be reduced significantly. The Committee urges the ATF to continue the conversion and integration of these records.

National Integrated Ballistic Information Network.—The Committee continues to support the National Integrated Ballistic Information Network [NIBIN], including significant investment made by State and local law enforcement partners to build the current NIBIN database. The Committee believes ATF should move expeditiously to ensure that ballistic-imaging technology is routinely refreshed, upgraded, and deployed to State and local law enforcement. The Committee urges ATF to prioritize the upgrading and replacement of aging ballistic imaging equipment in its fiscal year 2012 operating plan and in future budget requests. ATF should ensure upgrades and replacements maximize and protect the resources invested by State and local law enforcement.

National Center for Explosives Training and Research [NCETR].—Preventing the criminal use of explosives is one of the core missions of the ATF, and NCETR serves as the Bureau’s Center of Excellence for explosives research, training and intelligence. The Committee recognizes the state-of-the-art facilities housed at NCETR, having invested considerable resources between fiscal years 2004 and 2011 to that effort, and believes that the administration should provide sufficient resources for the Center to fulfill its mission, as initially envisioned. Furthermore, the Committee believes that several options to further interagency collaboration and training exist and merit exploration. Therefore, the Committee requests that the Department of Justice produce, not later than 120 days after enactment of this bill, an NCETR Five-Year Plan that will describe the following: the mission of the facility with respect to research, training, and intelligence; the personnel and budgetary authority required to execute that mission; national, State, and local initiatives to maximize training throughput at NCETR; and opportunities for interagency collaboration on research and intelligence efforts using the NCETR facility.

[KatiePavlich]

There is word from multiple congressional and ATF sources that a white paper is floating around DOJ, outlining the essential dismantling of ATF, at least the firing of 450 agents, in light of Operation Fast and Furious. Any word here about this?

[mad dog]

There are problems in many states but a certain AUSA recently abused his authority and power of his office which resulted in an OCDETF investigation being totally dismissed after 5 years and over 1 million dollars because of politics. This particular AUSA wanted a Title III
to conclude the investigation but it wasn't possible. What did the attorney do? declined the case by falsly making unsubstantiated allegations against this agent and group in his declination memo. As in the case in Arizona, AUSA's are also public servants and ARE NOT ABOVE THE LAW.

[DiveMaster]

Is anyone experiencing or have you recently experienced problems with your respective United States Attorneys Offices? Not, the typical day to day issues of an Assistant U.S. Attorney waffling on a case but more serious issues involving case mismanagement as well as innappropriate behavior directed toward agents, local officers and civilians. Also major problems with the Actual U.S. Attorney or his/her designees.

If you have expereinced such problems please share your input on how these problems were solved, if they were.

[Valkyrie]

Does anyone have information regarding ATF employees who received a Propsal To Remove Notice from the Proffessional Review Board (PRB) for Lack of Candor, or providiing false statement, falsifying documents and received a lesser punishment other than removal?

Part of the McLemore fiasco involved a street agent named Greg Cruise (sp?) in Atlanta. Earlier this year he was served with a proposed termination for lying to the OIG and IA in the - wait for it - Vanessa McLemore case. So basically a stone rascist and thug (McLemore) got a party, per diem and a paid move, and the agent got bent over. Word is the agent is now going to be allowed to retire instead of being fired. Maybe somebody on CUATF knows more details?

[marmal]

Does anyone have information regarding ATF employees who received a Propsal To Remove Notice from the Proffessional Review Board (PRB) for Lack of Candor, or providiing false statement, falsifying documents and received a lesser punishment other than removal?