OT: IRS is buying shotguns

erps · Feb 3, 2010

imported post

compmanio365 wrote:

Is the IRS a law enforcement agency? Was it ever supposed to be? If there are laws being broken and someone needs to be arrested, there are many law enforcement agencies that can be contacted and warrants can be served by those sworn officers who take an oath to uphold the law.

The IRS also has explicit enforcement responsibilities with regard to 18 USC §1956 and 18 USC §1957, dealing with money laundering, and 31 USC §5311 et seq., dealing with the Bank Secrecy Act (BSA). Pursuant to Treasury Directive 15-42 (January 21, 2002), the Commissioner, IRS has been delegated:

Investigatory authority over violations of 18 USC §1956 and 18 USC §1957 where the underlying conduct is subject to investigation under Title 26 or under the BSA as amended (i.e., 31 USC §5311, et seq. (other than violations of 31 USC §5316));
Seizure and forfeiture authority over violations of 18 USC §981 and 31 USC §5317, relating to violations of 31 USC §5313 and 31 USC §5324, and 18 USC §1956 and 18 USC §1957 which are within the investigatory jurisdiction of IRS (as set forth in the previous paragraph); and
http://www.irs.gov/irm/part9/irm_09-001-002.html#d0e26

sudden valley gunner · Feb 3, 2010

imported post

erps wrote:

But you are right the circular argument, is not getting anywhere he will get it or he won't. Plus he is a public employee so his view is a little slanted on this.

Click to expand...

I acknowlege a different perspective. SVG, this is the second time you accused me of making circular arguments. I had to go look it up the first time and didn't see that it applied and I don't see that it applies this time either. By my own bias I may be missing it tough. What is my circular argument?

Well we have two opposing viewpoints it becomes circular when either one of us would have to repeat, points made in a previous post.

erps · Feb 3, 2010

imported post

compmanio365 wrote:

The "tax man" shouldn't have powers of arrest, and is not a sworn law enforcement official.....why do they need shotguns?

There is no specific statutory authority for special agents to carry firearms. The General Counsel, Department of the Treasury, has concluded that no specific authority is necessary because " where a Federal officer has authority to make an arrest, he/she has implied authority to carry firearms" . Authority for special agents to make arrests is contained in 26 USC §7608(b).

http://www.irs.gov/irm/part9/irm_09-001-002.html#d0e219
[/list]

erps · Feb 3, 2010

imported post

Well we have two opposing viewpoints it becomes circular when either one of us would have to repeat, points made in a previous post.

Okay, thank you. If you google circular argument you will find a different meaning and that's why I was confused.

sudden valley gunner · Feb 3, 2010

imported post

erps wrote:

Well we have two opposing viewpoints it becomes circular when either one of us would have to repeat, points made in a previous post.

Click to expand...

Okay, thank you. If you google circular argument you will find a different meaning and that's why I was confused.

I just did you are right, learn something new everyday, I now know it's called circular reasoning.

sudden valley gunner · Feb 3, 2010

imported post

http://www.examiner.com/x-4525-Seat...m2d3-Your-tax-money-at-work-and-other-stories

Interesting article by Workman touching on the some of the same issues.

erps · Feb 3, 2010

imported post

I like Dave's writing. I'm a little surprised by his position on this one. The IRS has got to me one of the most hated agencies in the government. It would be intersting to conduct a poll here to see how many people would like to vote for a ban on the IRS enforcement department having firearms. Isn't that kind of ironic. A group of people here working on a gun ban?

compmanio365 · Feb 3, 2010

imported post

Ironic, sure. But I'll deal with a little irony....the more that balance tips to the populace being better armed than the government, the closer to true freedom we will have in this country. As it is right now, the scale is quite skewed against us.

HankT · Feb 3, 2010

imported post

erps wrote:

I like Dave's writing. I'm a little surprised by his position on this one. The IRS has got to me one of the most hated agencies in the government. It would be intersting to conduct a poll here to see how many people would like to vote for a ban on the IRS enforcement department having firearms. Isn't that kind of ironic. A group of people here working on a gun ban?

That's a splendid point.

The real truth is that everybody loves gun control of some form or other. We don't like government or police or the general public doing anything to control OUR guns.

But we don't really, ahem,mind controlling those of some subgroup out there that we deem unworthy. Or, simply, a group we just don't like, based on affiliation, job, socio-economic class, race, etc.

It's really interesting that we can do that.

erps · Feb 3, 2010

imported post

Is there an inverse relationship between our freedom and the number of armed law enforcement officers? I would anticipate that a great number of citizens would have an opposing view.

Trigger Dr · Feb 3, 2010

imported post

Ajetpilot wrote:

Good grief. Sixty-eight FederalLaw Enforcement agencies. Is that enough? No wonder the Federal budget is through the roof!

Just to put things in a bit of perspective. Although there are 68 agencies, you need to understand, they are not similiar to civilian LEO. FBI only has authority over certain laws, somewhere in the neighborhood of 200-250. IRS CID only has authority over the tax laws. Railroad police only on the rail system and not all of those. Secret Service limited to scope of authority. Treasury limited to counterfeiting, alcohol, tobacco, firearms, explosives and Coast Guard. US Marshall service is likewise limited as to scope of authority. NCIS was at one time, when I was Naval CID, called NIS, and only had statutory authority over naval personnel and installations. They had to call upon my agency if it involved civilian employees or was off station. When they were changed to NCIS, they gained authority over civilians an basicaly absorbed the CID. That is when I retired.

No one Federal agency has total authority.

diesel556 · Feb 3, 2010

imported post

HankT wrote:

erps wrote:

I like Dave's writing. I'm a little surprised by his position on this one. The IRS has got to me one of the most hated agencies in the government. It would be intersting to conduct a poll here to see how many people would like to vote for a ban on the IRS enforcement department having firearms. Isn't that kind of ironic. A group of people here working on a gun ban?

Click to expand...

That's a splendid point.

The real truth is that everybody loves gun control of some form or other. We don't like government or police or the general public doing anything to control OUR guns.

But we don't really, ahem, mind controlling those of some subgroup out there that we deem unworthy. Or, simply, a group we just don't like, based on affiliation, job, socio-economic class, race, etc.

It's really interesting that we can do that.

I don't have a problem with any citizen carrying a gun, regardless of his job.

I do have a problem with any citizen being part of an exempt class because of his job giving him a larger range of freedoms than I and my fellow man enjoy.

Let IRS agents, congressmen, DSHS clerks, and whoever else carry their own self bought weapons on federal property; just make sure that they can only do so because it is a protected right for ALL citizens!

Wheelgunner · Feb 3, 2010

imported post

There is no reason a TAX agency should be issued weapons. We had this same problem with the BATF and Weaver found out just what type of Justice they handed out.

erps · Feb 3, 2010

imported post

There is no reason a TAX agency should be issued weapons.

Drug dealers and mafia types launder money. Money laundering crimes apparently fall within IRS jurisdiction. Serving search warrants signed by a judge could be part of the investigative process for money laundering crimes. It would be negligent to have officers serving warrants in these types of situations without weapons. That is a reason for weapons IMO. Whether you agree with that reason or not is a different matter.

On April 28, 1995, Albert Petrosky walked into an Albertson's Grocery Store in suburban Denver, Colorado, and gunned down his estranged wife and the store manager. Armed with an L.A.R. Grizzly 50 caliber sniper rifle, an SKS Chinese semi-automatic assault rifle, a .32 revolver, and a 9mm semi-automatic pistol, Petrosky then walked out into the shopping center parking lot, where he exchanged fire with a federal IRS agent passing by and killed Sgt. Timothy Mossbrucker of the Jefferson County Sheriff's Department. Petrosky, who was known to his friends as "50-cal Al," fired all four weapons, including the 50 caliber rifle, during this murderous rampage.

http://www.vpc.org/snipercrime.htm

erps · Feb 3, 2010

imported post

Let IRS agents, congressmen, DSHS clerks, and whoever else carry their own self bought weapons on federal property; just make sure that they can only do so because it is a protected right for ALL citizens!

what about while serving search warrants or making arrests?

Citizen · Feb 3, 2010

imported post

Regarding the OP, I wouldn't get too worked up, fellas.

Yes, its a bit disgusting. But, fifty shotguns is only one per state.

Its the part about "compatibility with existing..."to which you should pay attention. It means they've already got them.

amlevin · Feb 3, 2010

imported post

Only 60 shotguns? What's all the fuss. Even when added to their existing "arsenal" it's a small number of guns in their hands, spread all over the 50 States.

I have some inside knowlege of the IRS "cops" and those who get to meet their weapons are just like erps described. Tax evaders like Drug Dealers, Professional Criminals, etc have the most to worry about. They won't be messing with many here. More likely someone from BATF which has far more weapons than the IRS criminal enforcement folks.

HankT · Feb 3, 2010

imported post

Citizen wrote:

Regarding the OP, I wouldn't get too worked up, fellas.

Yes, its a bit disgusting. But, fifty shotguns is only one per state.

Its the part about "compatibility with existing..."to which you should pay attention. It means they've already got them.

Oh-my-GOD!

A federal law enforcement agency .... which sometimes deals with criminals .....to make arrests.....or to confiscate property......

h-a-s s-o-m-e s-h-o-t-g-u-n-s!:what:

Duh!

erps · Feb 3, 2010

imported post

1982, South Florida Drug Task Force is formed. Outraged by the drug trade's increasing violence in their city, Miami citizens lobby the federal government for help. Reagan responds by creating a cabinet-level task force, the Vice President's Task Force on South Florida. Headed by George Bush, it combines agents from the DEA, Customs, FBI, ATF, IRS, Army and Navy to mobilize against drug traffickers. Reagan later create s several other regional task forces throughout the U.S.

The people of Florida asked for help. The people, through the executive branch, tasked these agencies to deal with violent people and then other citizens complain later when they equip themselves with the tools to do their job.

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/drugs/cron/

sudden valley gunner · Feb 3, 2010

imported post

Yea why fear them hmmm

http://www.cnn.com/ALLPOLITICS/1998/04/29/irs.hearings/

OT: IRS is buying shotguns

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

State Researcher

Regular Member

Regular Member

Lone Star Veteran

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Founder's Club Member

Regular Member

State Researcher

Regular Member

Regular Member