• We are now running on a new, and hopefully much-improved, server. In addition we are also on new forum software. Any move entails a lot of technical details and I suspect we will encounter a few issues as the new server goes live. Please be patient with us. It will be worth it! :) Please help by posting all issues here.
  • The forum will be down for about an hour this weekend for maintenance. I apologize for the inconvenience.
  • If you are having trouble seeing the forum then you may need to clear your browser's DNS cache. Click here for instructions on how to do that
  • Please review the Forum Rules frequently as we are constantly trying to improve the forum for our members and visitors.

Disband / Repeal: 1934 NFA - 1968 GCA - ATF

Should we repeal the any of these acts or bureaus ? - You may choose more than one answer..(multiple

  • REPEAL: National firearms act of 1934

    Votes: 0 0.0%

  • REPEAL: 1968 Gun Control Act

    Votes: 0 0.0%

  • DISBAND: Bureau of Alcohol Tobacco and Firearms

    Votes: 0 0.0%

  • LET STAND: National Firearms Act of 1934

    Votes: 0 0.0%

  • LET STAND: 1968 Gun Control Act

    Votes: 0 0.0%

  • LET STAND: Bureau of Alcohol Tobacco and Firearms

    Votes: 0 0.0%

  • There Has to be another Answer! - I will explaine in a post.

    Votes: 0 0.0%

  • There Has to be another answer, but i dont know what it could be right now.

    Votes: 0 0.0%

  • Just keep everything as it is - i am comfortable with the current status.

    Votes: 0 0.0%

  • NO Comment

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • Total voters
    0
rodbender

rodbender

Regular Member
Joined
Jun 23, 2008
Messages
2,519
Location
Navasota, Texas, USA
imported post

Sounds like tekshogunmay be a federal agent of some sort. He is really defensive aboutthe feds unconstitutionalpower to have a standing army (police force)to control the peasants.

And like I said, maybe he should have used the Arkansas State Guard.
 
T

tekshogun

Founder's Club Member
Joined
Nov 17, 2009
Messages
1,052
Location
Greensboro, North Carolina, USA
imported post

rodbender wrote:
Sounds like tekshogunmay be a federal agent of some sort. He is really defensive aboutthe feds unconstitutionalpower to have a standing army (police force)to control the peasants.

And like I said, maybe he should have used the Arkansas State Guard.
Click to expand...

That is a pretty unfounded charge andis not true. I am not a federal agent of any sort nor do I work for the federal government and I am not law enforcement of any kind and serve in no job or position of or dealing with investigations, private and public, or enforcement of any laws. I am a computer programmer, thank you. :)

I am not being defensive at all. You asked where the federal government got the power, I gave you an answer, I have said nothing to indicate I am defending anything. That is, outside of the fact that until the SCOTUS declares it unconstitutional, it's legal. Of course it can always be amended through the legislature as well to get rid of such laws, such as a repeal.

And last I checked, each State's National Guard IS exactly that, the "State Defense Force." The state's militia. Please see the Militia Act of 1903 and the National Defense Act of 1916.
 
Huck

Huck

Regular Member
Joined
Mar 27, 2008
Messages
646
Location
Evanston, Wyoming, USA
imported post

IMHO, anything that restricts and/or denies a right guarenteed by the Constitution is illegal!

As for BATF, I consider them to be nothing more than a rogue organization filled with thugs. We dont need them in any way, shape, or form.
 
T

tekshogun

Founder's Club Member
Joined
Nov 17, 2009
Messages
1,052
Location
Greensboro, North Carolina, USA
imported post

Huck wrote:
IMHO, anything that restricts and/or denies a right guarenteed by the Constitution is illegal!

As for BATF, I consider them to be nothing more than a rogue organization filled with thugs. We dont need them in any way, shape, or form.
Click to expand...

Agreed, but the BATFE by it self does not restrict or deny, the NFA and GCA and other laws do and they should be repealed for that very reason you mentioned. They restrict and deny. I don't care about the BATFE as an organization, just the laws they are tasked with enforcing.
 
GLOCK21GB

GLOCK21GB

Campaign Veteran
Joined
Apr 22, 2009
Messages
4,347
Location
Green Bay, Wisconsin, USA
imported post

I think the question is. how do we do away with these... NFA / GCA & the ATF... Vote them out ???

After we are done with this stuff we can... go after the IRS...:)
 
shad0wfax

shad0wfax

Regular Member
Joined
Oct 11, 2008
Messages
1,069
Location
Spokane, Washington, USA
imported post

tekshogun wrote:
I honestly can't say I have an issue with the BATFE as an organization as they are merely a tool for investigating and enforcing laws and will act in what ever capacity is appointed to them (and keeps them employed). They have a purpose and if repealing laws reduces their roles and scope of investigation and enforcement, then so be it, but disbanding them entirely without some proper cause or reason, I can not exactly support as there is more to this agency than the topics that we discuss at hand in the pro-gun-rights community.

Work should be done to change it and/or reorganize it, sure. If such a thing is warranted.

Now, if you're anti-government, that is another story and I can't follow you down that road.
Click to expand...
What service does the BATFE provide to the US taxpayer, and what Constitutional basis does that agency derive its existence from?

I can't even make a serious attempt to justify the BATFE's existence in an argument. For that matter I don't see the need for a DEA either. Between the US Border Patrol and the County Sheriffs there's no reason for a DEA to exist.

About the only thing uniquely useful that the BATFE does is their full-scale arson unit where they can reconstruct just about any arson life-size to investigate it. That's pretty cool. (You'd think that would be a service the FBI would provide to states that request it. How did the BATFE get involved in investigating fires?)

The entire purpose of the BATFE was to act as a tax-and-stamp tax-collector. The ATU (now the BATFE) was formed as a direct result of prohibition. They were originally a part of the Department of the Treasury, called the Alcohol Tax Unit which was a division of the Bureau of Internal Revenue. (now the IRS) They were, in essence, a federal vice-tax agency.

It wasn't until 2002 that President Bush transferred the BATFE to the USDOJ all in the name of Homeland Security. This isn't to imply that the BATFE wasn't running hog-wild before Bush (Hi, anyone remember Waco?) it's just to imply that now they're actually a new enforcement agency instead of just a tax agency. As of 2003 they're no longer collecting tax on alcohol or tobacco, we created yet another new federal agency to do that. This allows the BATFE to focus on more important things like redefining and reinterpreting 18 USC with whatever direction the wind-vane changes. (There's some really interesting reading on this, just check out auto-sears for AR-15s, Lightning-Links, Hellfire Triggers or the history of the HK 91 and all of its modifications. The BATFE loves to change the rules or make new ones up as they go along and we can't do a darned thing about it.) Now, under the astute leadership of Eric J. Holder, the BATFE can focus on what really matters...


:cuss: the BATFE. :cuss:them sideways with coarse-grit sandpaper.
 
rodbender

rodbender

Regular Member
Joined
Jun 23, 2008
Messages
2,519
Location
Navasota, Texas, USA
imported post

tekshogun wrote:
rodbender wrote:
Flyer22 wrote:
rodbender wrote:
The problem is not only that these laws are unconstitutional, but that theBATFEis as well. Can you tell me where in the Constitution that gives police powers to the feds? It doesn't. Law enforcement should be left to the states and local authorities.

All federal police agencies are unconstitutional. This would include the FBI, BATFE, DEA, U.S. Marshall's Office and the IRS. Can you find an authority to create a police agency? These agencies are the standing armies our founders were so afraid of.
Click to expand...

Article II, Section 3:
The President "shall take care that the laws be faithfully executed."

Article I, Section 8:
Congress shall have power "To make all laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into execution the foregoing powers, and all other powers vested by this Constitution in the government of the United States, or in any department or officer thereof."

By the way, earlier in Section 8, it says that Congress has power "To provide for calling forth the militia to execute the laws of the union." Would you prefer that federal laws be enforced by the National Guard?
Click to expand...

The part of Art. II, Sec3 you mentionwas simplyan admonishment to the president not to violate the Constitution.

"necessary and proper" This is one of the most overused portions of the Constitution. Almost as much as the "general welfare" and "commerce" clauses. It's used as one of the "catch all phrases".

No, I would not want the National Guard to enforce the laws. But then the National Guard is not the militia, the people or maybe even the State Guard could be considered the militia. At least it would be the Constitutional way of enforcing U.S. law. Alas, this is the statement (" To provide for callingforth")that tells me that the framers did not want the government to have a standing army nor astanding police force.

If the congressand the president had not enacted as manyunconstitutional laws as they have, there would be no need toenforce the laws of the U.S. except on occasion. Such as when Eisenhower sent themilitary into Arkansas to enforce integration. But then, perhapsheshould have used the State Guard of Arkansas instead.
Click to expand...

The President of the United States is not only the Chief Executive Officer, he is also the Chief Law Enforcement Officer.

The incident you speak of, the Little Rock Nine in Arkansas, President Eisenhower placed Arkansas National Guard troops under Federal control, something he has the ability to do, and used them to quell violence and keep the peace. This was done under Executive Order 10730.

It's all legal.
Click to expand...

I know that I am resurrecting an old thread, but I meant to answer this a lot sooner and got busy and then just plain forgot about it so here goes.

Eisenhower did nationalize the Arkansas Guard. Not to enforce the Brown v. Board of Education decision though. He did it to keep the governor from calling them up. He wanted to be able to tell them to stand down as he sent in the 101st Airborne into enforce the decision, thereby violating Posse Comitatus, and the Constitution. I know that it had to be enforced, and I agree with his decision to enforce it,but he took the wrong road to get it done.
 
deepdiver

deepdiver

Campaign Veteran
Joined
Apr 2, 2007
Messages
5,820
Location
Southeast, Missouri, USA
imported post

eye95 wrote:
1245A Defender wrote:
Glock34 wrote:
rodbender wrote:
Get rid of 34 and 68 and the BATFE has almost nothing to do.
Click to expand...
let em have Tobacco & Alcohol.....leave the guns alone.
Click to expand...
NOOOOoooooooo....ive got tabacco AND alcohol!!!!!

just let them have the explosives!
Click to expand...
NOOOOoooooooo....ive got exp....... Never mind!
Click to expand...
;)
 
6

6L6GC

Regular Member
Joined
Jul 9, 2007
Messages
492
Location
Newport News, Virginia, USA
imported post

tekshogun wrote:
I honestly can't say I have an issue with the BATFE as an organization as they are merely a tool for investigating and enforcing laws and will act in what ever capacity is appointed to them (and keeps them employed). They have a purpose and if repealing laws reduces their roles and scope of investigation and enforcement, then so be it, but disbanding them entirely without some proper cause or reason, I can not exactly support as there is more to this agency than the topics that we discuss at hand in the pro-gun-rights community.
Click to expand...

wouldn't the lack of constitutional authority for their existence be enough reason to disband them? I think the proper question to ask is: "is there constitutional authority for their existence". Lacking that I think, is reason enough to disband the thing altogether.



NOTE: I added the emphsis to tekshotgun's post to highlight the portion which I wished to address.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top