10 replies to this topic

[4CBWU]

The reason I do not disclose the name of my source is because A) I don't know you and I don't give the names of sources to anonymous web forum trolls, and if you are ATF, you have a reputation of bullying people you don't like or people who try to oust ATF for misbehavior. My source is confidential, as are your credentials, so as far as that is concerned, you can forget it.

[4CBWU]

I seem to recall the court cases following Waco ruled that the Branch Davidians used legitimate self defense to an excessive use of force by ATF. Of course you were being shot at. You brought a frickin' army ready for war when you could have just detained Koresh during his morning jog. The court also ruled that there were no "hellfire" weapons as described by ATF. After the court case commenced, the sentences of the Branch Davidians were commuted and large settlements were paid to many of the Branch Davidians.

As for Idaho, ATF tried to use Randy Weaver as an informant. When he refused, the ATF exacted retribution. They may not have pulled the trigger, but they certainly were an integral part of the process even in setting up Weaver, filing false charges. ATF may not have pulled the trigger, but they got the ball rolling.

Finally, Eric Holder even admitted that ATF's negligence in Fast & Furious would result in hundreds more deaths. Hundreds of people have died because ATF is too stupid and corrupt to realize that trafficking guns to known drug dealers is dangerous. Some memos even suggest ATF and DOJ did it for the sake of pushing gun control legislation. These are not rumors, they are fact.

Again, as for my original post, I was asking if anyone knew anything. No charges, no accusations. You didn't have to respond if you didn't have information, and instead you decided to alienate rather than cooperate, which is a character trait of ATF nationwide, and probably the reason ATF hasn't had a confirmed director in several years.

Do you really "wonder where all this is leading," Ike, or was that ellipses a desire to get a response? If you know where "this is all leading" I'd love to hear it. Certainly you have everything in the world to fear from ATF tracing a firearm found at a murder scene. That is some scary stuff. Please, quick as you can, tell me where that is leading so I can be prepared.

[PetePark1811]

Fog,
They are going to take our guns so when the Zombies come, only the UN will be able to save us. Duh! Didn't you know, no one has ever been convicted from a 4473. Also, FDR let the Japanese bomb Pearl Harbor so we would be forced into WWII. Zombies. Damn Zombies.

Do you really "wonder where all this is leading," Ike, or was that ellipses a desire to get a response? If you know where "this is all leading" I'd love to hear it. Certainly you have everything in the world to fear from ATF tracing a firearm found at a murder scene. That is some scary stuff. Please, quick as you can, tell me where that is leading so I can be prepared.

[PetePark1811]

4CBWU,
You are an idiot and an asshole. Get your facts straight. I know you jackasses love to hate on ATF, but at least get it straight. ATF shot no one in Idaho, women, children, no one. Get it. In Waco, ATF killed two people that day. Two men who were shooting at us. One on top of the water tower and one in the back forty. Both were shooting at us. The other four "men" were executed by Koresh. This is from his own people. They were wounded and he killed them. I know you rather believe we did everything bad in the world, but don't let a little truth get in the way of a good story. So, under you logic, if the DEA or FBI doesn't stop a drug deal they hear on a wire and lets the drugs go, they are guilty of drug smuggling. Of wait, you only hate ATF. Again, don't let a little logic and truth get in your way. You through that shit out there.

Rather than coming on here making a claim that the ATF was definitely conducting nefarious activities on Louisiana, I decided to ask if anyone on here, a watchdog site, has heard anything about it. That's Why I came to CleanUpATF.org forums to see if I could get any information from the people who should know. I guess you don't know anything about it.

The ATF doesn't need rumors to make it look bad. The ATF does a good enough job on its own killing unarmed women and shooting children in the back in Texas and Idaho, and by smuggling guns across the Mexican border. (How's that for the big leagues).

[4CBWU]

Rather than coming on here making a claim that the ATF was definitely conducting nefarious activities on Louisiana, I decided to ask if anyone on here, a watchdog site, has heard anything about it. That's Why I came to CleanUpATF.org forums to see if I could get any information from the people who should know. I guess you don't know anything about it.

The ATF doesn't need rumors to make it look bad. The ATF does a good enough job on its own killing unarmed women and shooting children in the back in Texas and Idaho, and by smuggling guns across the Mexican border. (How's that for the big leagues).

Sorry you're offended. But you're in the big leagues now. Name your source and their basis of knowledge of the information you so innocently desire to confirm. Or did you not follow up with them when they "advised" you of what they knew? Did you not ask, "How do you know that?" No. You didn't. In fact it didn't go that way at all did it? Your source said something he/she heard from someone else. Isn't that true. C'mon, man. Full disclosure here. Cite your source and their basis of knowledge for the information. Admit if it was some third-hand information that you posted here so you could further your noble cause of getting to the truth and confirming such atrocity. You are the one that claimed "reliability" of your source. Prove it.

I swear sometimes I cannot believe I'm talking with people who have any involvement in law enforcement at all. You stated an allegation. You claimed reliability of your source. You attempted to investigate if further by asking around here. Now do it right. Name your source and their contact information and I will find out their basis of knowledge for the information myself. And if it's true, I'll find the person who made that statement and try to get it put into context and then if it is true that "the ATF instructed that if a gun is found during a search, even if the gun is legally owned/possessed/carried, that it should be confiscated and that the owner could always recover it from the police department later." I will personally find the person that gave that instruction and make sure they retract it.


Speaking of New Year's resolutions. Here's a suggestion for you. If you have a provable fact. Say it out loud. Hell scream it from the top of the roof. If you have a rumor, verify it then when verified say it. If you do not have the ability to understand that your "innocent little request" for confirmation is reckless and damaging then you really should leave the posting here to the adults. My guess is you do know that and its the reason you put it up. Pile on ATF is the name of the game here and you, without a single ounce of trying to confirm it yourself, piled on. A little sheep following the others.


If you don't like this. If this offends you. If this is too much heat for you. Get off the forum. If you can handle it name your source by name and provide their basis of knowledge for the information you posted that insulted me and every ATF employee.

[PetePark1811]

4CBWU,
What you are missing is that for years, ATF employees have been accused of all kinds of crazy crap. From helping the UN sweep into the US from Canada to black helicopters to death camps at the Oklahoma Transfer Facility. I really am tired of all the crazy conspiracies. I don't think asking people to stick with facts is too much to ask for. How would you feel if a neighbor was telling your children's teacher that they heard you were a registered sex offender. Doesn't matter if it is true, the label is out there. Good luck ever recovering from the lie. Just take a little time before you throw it out there and verify your facts. The simple fact that you are asking the question like it actually happened can hurt someone. "Did you ever hear anything about 4CBWU was arrested for raping his little sister as a child, but the rumor is the record was sealed." Just take a second and think. Now, attack me for being a mole.

I don't appreciate your sarcasm. I'm not reporting anything. I'm asking if anyone has heard anything about information I received. I'm not making any claim that ATF is factually doing anything, just asking if anyone has any information which could confirm the report I received.

Maybe your new year's resolution should be to stop being a sarcastic snark on web forums. You may turn out to be a happier person.

btw-my source is a friend of mine who is a state elected official who received the information from a District Attorney.

[4CBWU]

I don't appreciate your sarcasm. I'm not reporting anything. I'm asking if anyone has heard anything about information I received. I'm not making any claim that ATF is factually doing anything, just asking if anyone has any information which could confirm the report I received.

Maybe your new year's resolution should be to stop being a sarcastic snark on web forums. You may turn out to be a happier person.

btw-my source is a friend of mine who is a state elected official who received the information from a District Attorney.

<br><br>Extremely responsible reporting 4CBWU! The general public thanks you. Have you ever thought about going into journalism? Your bulldog nose for a hot story is truly amazing. Keep up the good work!!

<div><br></div><div>Now cite your source. If indeed your source is reliable as you indicated, you will not need confirmation. So don't ask for it. Just cite the source and prove the reliability of your source be detailing their basis of knowledge and you will have won. It's really not as hard as you make it it to be.&nbsp;</div>

[ATFTRUTHTELLER]

This is not surprising. ATF tries to get all law enforcement to trace every gun they observe or encounter - for several purposes. From an ATF brochure: "ATF's longstanding position is that investigating the origin of the firearm [a trace] to develop leads to determine if it has been used in a crime constitutes a bona fide law enforcement investigation".

As I understand it, the law only permits ATF traces for bona fide law enforcement investigations. By twisting the meaning, ATF infers that every firearm 'might' have been used in a crime (or 'might' be in the future), therefore every trace is a bona fide law enforcement investigation, and every possible firearm should be traced. (Anybody else see something wrong with this logic?)

Incidentally, through eTrace, each trace performed creates one (or more) firearm and owner registration record at ATF's National Tracing Center. The most recent report indicates over 4 million trace (registration) records have been created and are permanently retained by ATF. Counting dealer out-of-business records, multiple sale reports, suspect guns (as in Fast & Furious), and theft guns, there are several hundred million firearm and firearm owner registration records overall. Now, we'll have the multiple long gun purchase records, too.

ATF’s Gary L. Thomas, in a 2003 United Nations Institute for Disarmament Research paper, referred to the “Gold Standard” of tracing being “web-based registration”, explicitly and consistently forbidden by Congress. Yet, that's exactly what eTrace has turned into. Not to mention that eTrace (and the firearm and owner registration records) can now be accessed world-wide....

Gee, I wonder where all this is leading.....?

Wow! You really took my comments a whole different direction.

[Ike]

This is not surprising. ATF tries to get all law enforcement to trace every gun they observe or encounter - for several purposes. From an ATF brochure: "ATF's longstanding position is that investigating the origin of the firearm [a trace] to develop leads to determine if it has been used in a crime constitutes a bona fide law enforcement investigation".

As I understand it, the law only permits ATF traces for bona fide law enforcement investigations. By twisting the meaning, ATF infers that every firearm 'might' have been used in a crime (or 'might' be in the future), therefore every trace is a bona fide law enforcement investigation, and every possible firearm should be traced. (Anybody else see something wrong with this logic?)

Incidentally, through eTrace, each trace performed creates one (or more) firearm and owner registration record at ATF's National Tracing Center. The most recent report indicates over 4 million trace (registration) records have been created and are permanently retained by ATF. Counting dealer out-of-business records, multiple sale reports, suspect guns (as in Fast & Furious), and theft guns, there are several hundred million firearm and firearm owner registration records overall. Now, we'll have the multiple long gun purchase records, too.

ATF’s Gary L. Thomas, in a 2003 United Nations Institute for Disarmament Research paper, referred to the “Gold Standard” of tracing being “web-based registration”, explicitly and consistently forbidden by Congress. Yet, that's exactly what eTrace has turned into. Not to mention that eTrace (and the firearm and owner registration records) can now be accessed world-wide....

Gee, I wonder where all this is leading.....?

[ATFTRUTHTELLER]

I have never heard this before, but I can see how it could be confusing. Most everything ATF Law Enforcement does is related to convicted felons having guns or carrying a gun while drug dealing (violent crime). A majority of this is in relation to gang crime (crip, blood, outlaw motorcycle gangs, etc..). I could easily see ATF saying that while executing a search warrant for narcotics or a violent crime, if you come across a gun, you should take it into custody. With a good interview of the suspect, you might be able to prove 924© - carrying a firearms during and in relation to a drug trafficking crime or a crime of violence. That tacks a extra five years on the defendant. You can take almost anything out of context and make it sound either good or bad. I would never advocate taking the gun of a law abiding citizen. I believe it is a constitutional right and must be protected. Convicted felon or drug dealing gang member - we need to remove them from the streets and put them into federal prison for a long time, and yes, take their guns. I hope you get my point. For years, people having be getting half the story about what street agents are doing and it makes it sound like we are taking citizens guns. Most of the agents I know have large firearms collections and love to go shoot. The industry Ops side (dealing with FFLs) is something the agents rarely get involved with. Most all our contacts are positive and we are asking them for help, not trying to regulate them.

And remember, you can only take what is listed in the warrant unless it would be another violation to leave it there. Say, you were doing a warrant for sexual assault and notice a gun in the corner. You realize it is a saw off shotgun and next to it is a pound of cocaine. Should I leave it???

[4CBWU]

I heard from a reliable source about a continuing education law enforcement class or conference in Louisiana. The source told me the ATF instructed that if a gun is found during a search, even if the gun is legally owned/possessed/carried, that it should be confiscated and that the owner could always recover it from the police department later.

Can anyone confirm if this claim is true?