NationStates Jolt Archive

In August of 2005, participants at gun shows in Virginia were shocked to discover that while they were purchasing perfectly legal firearms, BATFE agents visited their homes and their neighbors' homes, asking questions like, "Do you know your spouse/neighbor is buying a gun? How do you feel about that?" (1) Agents obtained the residence information from purchase forms that buyers are required to fill out ... a clear violation of federal law.

Now, seven months later, the U.S. House Judiciary Subcommittee on Crime, Terrorism and Homeland Security will hold an oversight hearing to investigate apparent wrongdoing by BATFE. The hearings will be held on February 15, at 4:00 p.m. While we applaud the fact that _someone_ is looking into the issue, we remain skeptical as to the outcome.

For one, the hearing is being chaired by James M.
Sensenbrenner. Despite the (R) after his name, Sensenbrenner has shown multiple times that he is no friend of gun owners. Author of the Real ID Act (2), Sensenbrenner vigorously defended the BATFE after the John Glover travesty (3). Not content with that, he has also refused to allow HR 1603 -- the "Fairness in Firearms Testing" bill
(4) -- out of the _same_ committee now conducting these hearings! With Sensenbrenner's record of support for the State over the individual, how impartial can the hearings be? That it was scheduled for 4pm -- too late for it to be part of the evening news -- is equally telling. Are gun owners being set up for betrayal yet again?

There's no dispute that the Virginia incidents were completely unacceptable violations of individuals' rights (as well as violations of federal law!). But we must ask, what about all of the innocent gun owners currently rotting in prison or left financially destitute as a direct result of BATFE's capricious and arbitrary actions (5)? Will the hearings address those who are falsely accused based on dubious informant tips, set up by "experts" who don't bother to examine the firearm in question (6), and convicted on the subjective opinion of those same "experts"
(7)?

The BATFE has been known as a rogue agency for decades, yet no one -- neither Democrat nor Republican -- has attempted to rein them in. The few investigations into this organization have netted at most a slap on the wrist. Why?

Because they are useful to those who wish to gather and maintain power. A police state, after all, must have its police force.

We must continue to educate everyone -- even those who neither own nor like firearms -- about the dangerous power of the BATFE, and the precedent it sets. If one agency can arbitrarily decide whether an object is "legal" (without any standards or documented testing procedures), than ANY agency can. After all, if the BATFE can decide a shoestring is a machine gun (8), what is to prevent the DEA from declaring your greenhouse a "drug manufacturing plant"?

This issue affects all Americans, regardless of political affiliation. Please, please take a moment to join our "Boot the BATFE" campaign at http://www.jpfo.org/bootbatfe.htm .
We must continue to make noise about this issue and demand our representatives do whatever it takes to put the BATFE genie back in its bottle.

With all of the documented abuses the BATFE has indulged in, there is NO excuse for defending this agency gone mad.
Anyone who defends, condones, or apologizes for the BATFE is either willfully ignorant ... or maliciously power- hungry. Boot them out of your lives, and tell them why. The American people have tolerated this monstrosity for far too long.

(1) "BATFE Sinks to New Low in Richmond"
http://************/cz324
(2) "The End of America: May 10, 2005"
http://www.jpfo.org/alert20050511.htm
(3) "Rep. Sensenbrenner Fails the Test"
http://www.jpfo.org/alert20050329.htm
(4) "Fairness in Firearms Testing"
http://www.jpfo.org/alert20050418.htm
(5) "Vital Warning to All Owners of Semiautomatic Firearms"
http://www.jpfo.org/alert20050103.htm
(6) "BATFE Fails the Test"
http://www.jpfo.org/batfevideo.htm
(7) Congressional Research Services Memo http://www.jpfo.org/ATFguntests.pdf
(8) BATFE Claiming Shoestring is a Machine Gun http://www.jpfo.org/shoestring.jpg
(9) Boot the BATFE Campaign
http://www.jpfo.org/bootbatfe.htm

Come on, it took me half the thing to figure you were talknig about the ATF, they call themselves the ATF for pete's sake.


And you have to give props to a group who can legally classify a shoestring as a machinegun.

Come on, it took me half the thing to figure you were talknig about the ATF, they call themselves the ATF for pete's sake.


And you have to give props to a group who can legally classify a shoestring as a machinegun.

You should read that shoestring link, pantless.

If you're wearing shoes with shoelaces at least 14 inches long, and you have the ability to tie a loop in each end, you are in possession of two, count them, two machineguns.

To the ATF, you don't even need the firearm - you only need the "necessary" parts. In this case, you have shoelaces, which they have determined to be "machineguns".

Ever thought you would be the proud owner of two machineguns? More, if you have more shoelaces...

You should read that shoestring link, pantless.

If you're wearing shoes with shoelaces at least 14 inches long, and you have the ability to tie a loop in each end, you are in possession of two, count them, two machineguns.

To the ATF, you don't even need the firearm - you only need the "necessary" parts. In this case, you have shoelaces, which they have determined to be "machineguns".

Ever thought you would be the proud owner of two machineguns? More, if you have more shoelaces...
Based solely on that latter--because I have nothing else to go on--that's a specious reading. The letter says "because the item was designed and intended to convert a semiautomatic rifle into a machinegun..." That doesn't mean a shoelace is a machinegun, because without the semiautomatic rifle in hand and the shoelace tied in that particular way, you can't have a machinegun. Without one of the two elements, the machinegun doesn't exist. Ergo, a shoelace by itself is not a machinegun.

You should read that shoestring link, pantless.
I did, that is why I said that.

If you're wearing shoes with shoelaces at least 14 inches long, and you have the ability to tie a loop in each end, you are in possession of two, count them, two machineguns.
Assuming you have a gun with you as well. Also, your finger is part of the machinegun because it is a part necesary in converting the weapon.

I did, that is why I said that.


Assuming you have a gun with you as well. Also, your finger is part of the machinegun because it is a part necesary in converting the weapon.

No, you don't need the gun.

The ATF has held many times that mere possession of a "part" of a machinegun is posession of a machinegun.

For example, the tiny metal part that constitutes the automatic sear for an automatic weapon - just holding that 50 cent part in your house - with no other weapons present - is enough to get you 20 years in jail.

Looks like they think that a shoelace is now a "part" - which means that it's a machinegun.

No, you don't need the gun.

The ATF has held many times that mere possession of a "part" of a machinegun is posession of a machinegun.

For example, the tiny metal part that constitutes the automatic sear for an automatic weapon - just holding that 50 cent part in your house - with no other weapons present - is enough to get you 20 years in jail.

Looks like they think that a shoelace is now a "part" - which means that it's a machinegun.
They'd be laughed out of court if they tried to bring a charge on that and you damn well know it. And you accuse me of being an extremist.

They'd be laughed out of court if they tried to bring a charge on that and you damn well know it. And you accuse me of being an extremist.
Try telling that to people who are in jail for long sentences for holding a tiny metal part in their house - and no corresponding weapon.

It's their power and prerogative to do so.

No, you don't need the gun.

The ATF has held many times that mere possession of a "part" of a machinegun is posession of a machinegun.

For example, the tiny metal part that constitutes the automatic sear for an automatic weapon - just holding that 50 cent part in your house - with no other weapons present - is enough to get you 20 years in jail.

Looks like they think that a shoelace is now a "part" - which means that it's a machinegun.wrong, it's a machinegun only when you have a loop tied to both ends of your shoelace. Until that happens, the shoelace is not designed to convert a gun into a machinegun.

so as long as you don't have a loop tied on BOTH ends of your shoelace... you're ok.

I read the document as well, and I can't say that your intepretation holds anything but hot air, DK.

They even give the courtesy of putting the revelant text in bold for you. Though my guess is that you were seeing too much red to notice.

Try telling that to people who are in jail for long sentences for holding a tiny metal part in their house - and no corresponding weapon.

It's their power and prerogative to do so.
A tiny metal part that has no other potential use other than to be in a machinegun perhaps? I'll say it again, and I'd put money on it--you'll never get a gun conviction for a dual or multi-use item if there's no other evidence that it's being used for the gun purpose. You might even get sanctioned by a judge for wasting his/her time.

I read the document as well, and I can't say that your intepretation holds anything but hot air, DK.

They even give the courtesy of putting the revelant text in bold for you. Though my guess is that you were seeing too much red to notice.
The problem is, it that the regulations are totally "up to interpretation".

These regulations have the force of law without having ever gone through the lawmaking process.

When the President does things like that 'yall scream "dictatorial fiat!" yet when an unaccountable agency of bureaucrats decides to invent ambiguous regulations, nobody seems to have a problem with it.

It's all very puzzeling to me.

A tiny metal part that has no other potential use other than to be in a machinegun perhaps? I'll say it again, and I'd put money on it--you'll never get a gun conviction for a dual or multi-use item if there's no other evidence that it's being used for the gun purpose. You might even get sanctioned by a judge for wasting his/her time.
Nazz, I have enough blank metal stock to build several 9mm submachine guns. I also have a book that tells me how to do it. Under my kitchen sink and in my paint locker I have a variety of household chemicals that, when combined in a particular way (that I learned in the EOD) make jim-dandy IEDs.

When is the BATFE going to come and kick in my door, kill my cats and shoot me for possessing the "precursors" of machineguns and explosives?

The problem is, it that the regulations are totally "up to interpretation".

These regulations have the force of law without having ever gone through the lawmaking process.

When the President does things like that 'yall scream "dictatorial fiat!" yet when an unaccountable agency of bureaucrats decides to invent ambiguous regulations, nobody seems to have a problem with it.

It's all very puzzeling to me.


But in this case they are very specific, there's no "interpretation" of anything.

Any part designed and intended solely and exclusively, or combination of parts designed and intended, for use in converting a weapon into a machinegun...

They later go on to refer to a specific case in 1996 where a shoelace was used to convert a rifle to automatic fire, and even describe how it was done.

Where's the abiguity? There isn't any, none.

Nazz, I have enough blank metal stock to build several 9mm submachine guns. I also have a book that tells me how to do it. Under my kitchen sink and in my paint locker I have a variety of household chemicals that, when combined in a particular way (that I learned in the EOD) make jim-dandy IEDs.

When is the BATFE going to come and kick in my door, kill my cats and shoot me for possessing the "precursors" of machineguns and explosives?

Well, now that you're broadcasting it on the internets, I wouldn't be surprised if they come later on today. Cuz' only terrissss know that stuff! :p

Nazz, I have enough blank metal stock to build several 9mm submachine guns. I also have a book that tells me how to do it. Under my kitchen sink and in my paint locker I have a variety of household chemicals that, when combined in a particular way (that I learned in the EOD) make jim-dandy IEDs.

When is the BATFE going to come and kick in my door, kill my cats and shoot me for possessing the "precursors" of machineguns and explosives?
Okay, I was afraid this was going to happen. I need to make something clear--I'm no fan of the ATF. I think they guilty of a lot of shit that they get accused of, and the US would be better off if their responsibilities were pushed into other agencies and they were disbanded. The only thing I was talking about in this thread was the claim that a shoestring, barring any other connection to a semi-automatic weapon, could be classified as a machinegun and a person could be convicted of owning a precursor simply because they're wearing laced shoes. That's a specious claim.

As to your scenario, the books could be considered a linkage for the metal stock to a weapon, but it's a tenuous one, because without, say, the tools to actually make the weapon, there's a lot of ground to be covered to make a case. As to the explosives part, everyone knows that household chemicals can be used to make them. It's not a secret, and yet those things are sold everyday. The ATF isn't charging P&G with making precursors, and I don't know of a single case where a person was charged only with possession of precursors for explosives and those precursors were household chemicals.

Could it happen? Sure--anything can happen in the right political climate. Is it likely? Less probable, in my view.

It should be noted that the FOPA of 1986(?) was passed almost exclusively due to abuses by the ATF using vague and often contradictory wording in the 1968 gun control acts (BTW Kerry and Kennedy voted AGAINST this law).

There are lists of people still that are being entrapped by the BATFE and now they are blatantly violating federal law to harass people buying guns through perfectly legal and legitimate channels.

As to your scenario, the books could be considered a linkage for the metal stock to a weapon, but it's a tenuous one, because without, say, the tools to actually make the weapon, there's a lot of ground to be covered to make a case. As to the explosives part, everyone knows that household chemicals can be used to make them. It's not a secret, and yet those things are sold everyday. The ATF isn't charging P&G with making precursors, and I don't know of a single case where a person was charged only with possession of precursors for explosives and those precursors were household chemicals.

Could it happen? Sure--anything can happen in the right political climate. Is it likely? Less probable, in my view.

It's not even a point of successful prosecution. All they have to do is make the accusations and he would spend years of his life and thousands of dollars (if not more) defending himself. They HAVE charged people for making "machineguns" when they weren't and then blatantly lied on the stand. The guy was found not guilty but do you think he'll get reimbursed for the time and money lost?

While Syniks may be going more extreme than I would, the ATF IS going after people in similar ways and harrassing people who buy firearms.

Okay, I was afraid this was going to happen. I need to make something clear--I'm no fan of the ATF. I think they guilty of a lot of shit that they get accused of, and the US would be better off if their responsibilities were pushed into other agencies and they were disbanded. The only thing I was talking about in this thread was the claim that a shoestring, barring any other connection to a semi-automatic weapon, could be classified as a machinegun and a person could be convicted of owning a precursor simply because they're wearing laced shoes. That's a specious claim.

As to your scenario, the books could be considered a linkage for the metal stock to a weapon, but it's a tenuous one, because without, say, the tools to actually make the weapon, there's a lot of ground to be covered to make a case. Well, as a matter of fact, the only tools required are a Hand Drill, a "Hack" saw, a hand file a bench grinder and a propane torch. - and even some of those can be worked around.
As to the explosives part, everyone knows that household chemicals can be used to make them. It's not a secret, and yet those things are sold everyday. The ATF isn't charging P&G with making precursors, and I don't know of a single case where a person was charged only with possession of precursors for explosives and those precursors were household chemicals.

Could it happen? Sure--anything can happen in the right political climate. Is it likely? Less probable, in my view.For now. What if BushCo decided that we may have SplodyDope Terrorists in our midst and since he can't tap International Calls has to take more direct "regulatory" action?

Well, now that you're broadcasting it on the internets, I wouldn't be surprised if they come later on today. Cuz' only terrissss know that stuff! :p
That and people with Anti-terrorist training, military experience, EOD training, remembered what they were taught in Organic CHEM 101, have taken metal shop, etc, etc, etc.

Actually the only reason the Terrorists DON'T win in the next 15 minutes is that they are dumber than rocks and DON'T have the kind of education many, many people in the US have.

While Syniks may be going more extreme than I would, the ATF IS going after people in similar ways and harrassing people who buy firearms.
Notice that the point of the article posted is that they specifically broke federal law and used the 4417 form to get addresses and visit the homes and neighbors of people buying guns at gun shows.

These weren't "under the table" transactions by gunrunners, terrorists and gangland straw buyers, these were legitimate, tracked, "regulated" legal purchases at legal gun shows. (no "gun show loophole")

Here's a small compilation of the good work done by the ATF in persuit of "regulatory compliance".

https://www.mega.nu/batf/croaker/individ.html

Actually the only reason the Terrorists DON'T win in the next 15 minutes is that they are dumber than rocks and DON'T have the kind of education many, many people in the US have.

Amen.