 |
| Author |
Message |
|
SmokinHawk
|
Post subject: Re: So, there's no ATF director because Senate wont approve one?  Posted: Mon Jan 21, 2013 12:47 pm |
|
Joined: Thu Apr 30, 2009 9:29 am
Posts: 4726
Location: Not Umatilla, Oregon
|
Awesome, I'm going to pick this apart bit by bit. 12evanf wrote: I'm nearly certain this Washington Post article is the one the Daily Show gleaned for their bit. Here's the digest version: Quote: The National Tracing Center is the only place in the nation authorized to trace gun sales. Here, researchers with the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives make phone calls and pore over handwritten records from across the country to track down gun owners. In contrast with such state-of-the-art, 21st-century crime-fighting techniques as DNA matching and digital fingerprint analysis, gun tracing is an antiquated, laborious process done mostly by hand. The government is prohibited from putting gun ownership records into an easily accessible format, such as a searchable computer database. They act as though tracing a firearm is a difficult process. It's not. If a firearm turns up at a crime scene, its serial number is quite easily traced. First, you contact the manufacturer to find out which store it was sold to, then you contact the store to audit the record of sale. Simple. It is true that ownership databases are illegal for the Feds to keep, and for good reason. With exceptions granted to only a couple countries in Europe (Switzerland, Czech Republic), gun registries are followed up by gun seizures. The same rationale is applied to cash-for-gold sales under $10,000. No record is kept as back in the 30s the Feds couldn't keep their grubby hands off of people's property and went door-to-door, seizing all gold based investments, so that people would be forced to accept their fiat currency. Quote: When firearms dealers close, they are required to box up their records and send them to the Martinsburg tracing center. Charles Houser, who oversees the center, and his staff are inundated by the thousands of boxes of records that come in on the trucks each month. They are stacked high along the walls and between cubicles. Last year, the backlog of boxes waiting to be sorted and digitally copied reached 12,000.
"I was absolutely appalled and depressed at what they are going through out there," Rep. Alan B. Mollohan (D-W.Va.), chairman of the House Appropriations Subcommittee on Commerce, Justice and Science, told ATF officials at a hearing this year. "Literally you see pallets of these records come in, and they're just absolutely overwhelmed." The BATFE has a budget of 1.2 billion US Dollars, and only 5000 employees. Considering the narrow scope of their operations, they should be able to handle their records. No excuses. Quote: In 1972, when the ATF separated from the Internal Revenue Service and became its own bureau within the Treasury Department, it had about 2,500 agents. At the time, the FBI had 8,700, the DEA 1,500 and the U.S. Marshals 1,900.
Thirty-eight years later, the FBI is up to 13,000, the DEA has more than tripled to 5,000, and there are 3,300 federal marshals.
The ATF, now a part of the Justice Department, remains at 2,500.
The BATFE shouldn't even exist as a separate branch of law enforcement. They should be nothing more than a branch of the FBI, if they are allowed to exist at all. Quote: Nationwide, dealers lose track of an enormous number of guns. Since 2005, 3,847 inspections have documented 113,642 guns that cannot be found. (The Bushmaster rifle used in the D.C. sniper killings in 2002 had gone missing from a gun store in Tacoma, Wash.)
The process is complicated because dealers by law do not have to take inventory. In a 2003 provision authored by Rep. Todd Tiahrt (R-Kan.), Congress prohibited the ATF from requiring dealers to do inventories. As a result, ATF inspectors sometimes have to spend days or weeks poring through a dealer's paperwork and physically matching it to the guns on hand.
"An annual inventory is part of every business," said Zammillo, who retired this year after four decades with the ATF. "Congress said we forbid you to require a business to take an inventory. This is a self-regulating matter. Businesses aren't required to inventory themselves but they will lose their gun license if the BATFE comes in and finds that the records don't line up. Such is what happened to Bull's Eye in Tacoma, the store which armed the DC Beltway Sniper(s). Why ATF has no director: Quote: April 2009, the job of acting director was given to Kenneth Melson, a former Virginia prosecutor and director of the Justice Department's Executive Office for U.S. Attorneys. But Melson was demoted to deputy director under the Vacancies Reform Act, which limits how long acting chiefs can run federal agencies. He still runs the agency, but the top job sits vacant. The BATFE should not exist as a separate branch of law enforcement, period. Their mere existence is a matter of questionable Constitutionality. Do you even believe in the Constitution? Does the BATFE really need a director? Sell me on this one. Loopholes: Quote: Willingham's Sports in western Alabama found a way to stay open even after the ATF revoked its license. Along a stretch of a highway in the small, riverfront city of Demopolis, the store lost track of more than 180 guns and failed more than 700 times to correctly log firearm sales over a dozen years, records show. The ATF took the rare step in early 2002 of moving to revoke the store's license.
But licensee Jimmie R. Willingham appealed through the agency's internal process. He told an ATF hearing officer that he didn't mean to break the law.
"It's all paperwork," Willingham said. "And it's been neglected. And it's our fault."
The case wound through ATF channels for two years before the revocation was upheld. Willingham then turned to the courts. Almost a year and a half passed after that. It was mid-2005 before a federal judge and a court of appeals had both ruled for the ATF.
"Willingham carelessly disregarded its recordkeeping obligations under the Gun Control Act for more than a decade," the district judge said.
The ATF repeatedly authorized Willingham to sell guns while the revocation played out. Finally, in August 2006, more than a year after the courts ruled in favor of the ATF, Willingham's license extensions lapsed.
The ATF visited to make sure Willingham understood that his license was no longer valid. He told them he was transferring his inventory to his father, who had worked with him at the shop and had secured his own ATF dealer's license for the location. ATF inspectors reported that the father told them he would operate his gun business "inside his son's sporting-goods store." Are you suggesting that if someone in a family loses their license to sell guns, the entire family should be ineligible for a license to sell guns? If you want this changed, perhaps you should lobby Congress to revise their stance on personhood for incorporated businesses. This is hardly a loophole.
_________________
Feel free to contact me if you need legal assistance. I have a great lawyer that helped me with an ex who violated my privacy and kept harassing me on MySpace and Facebook. He's very good. And there is legal precedent. - linuxpro
He is hold back the legion of boom - skater18000
|
|
  |
|
|
|
12evanf
|
Post subject: Re: So, there's no ATF director because Senate wont approve one? Posted: Mon Jan 21, 2013 12:58 pm |
|
| NET Veteran |
 |
 |
Joined: Wed Mar 14, 2012 10:40 am
Posts: 1700
|
SmokinHawk wrote: Awesome, I'm going to pick this apart bit by bit.
Are you suggesting that if someone in a family loses their license to sell guns, the entire family should be ineligible for a license to sell guns? If you want this changed, perhaps you should lobby Congress to revise their stance on personhood for incorporated businesses. This is hardly a loophole. I'm suggesting oversight and accountability. Anyone should be able to transfer a business, you cunt fart. You shouldn't be able to lose track of hundreds of guns, fail to file appropriate sales paperwork for guns, then drag it through the courts for 10 years, where evidence of your incompetence is upheld by every court it faces, then when the law finally revokes your license, you to transfer it to a family member, allowing another decade of incompetence before the law can catch up with you. If the ATF wasn't so goddamned hog tied maybe the bad guys wouldn't have so many guns and we could lessen the restrictions on law abiding citiziens. Is your head really that far up your ass, or is this some schtick?
|
|
| |
|
|
|
SmokinHawk
|
Post subject: Re: So, there's no ATF director because Senate wont approve one? Posted: Mon Jan 21, 2013 1:12 pm |
|
Joined: Thu Apr 30, 2009 9:29 am
Posts: 4726
Location: Not Umatilla, Oregon
|
12evanf wrote: SmokinHawk wrote: Awesome, I'm going to pick this apart bit by bit.
Are you suggesting that if someone in a family loses their license to sell guns, the entire family should be ineligible for a license to sell guns? If you want this changed, perhaps you should lobby Congress to revise their stance on personhood for incorporated businesses. This is hardly a loophole. I'm suggesting oversight and accountability. Anyone should be able to transfer a business, you cunt fart. You shouldn't be able to lose track of hundreds of guns, fail to file appropriate sales paperwork for guns, then drag it through the courts for 10 years, where evidence of your incompetence is upheld by every court it faces, then when the law finally revokes your license, you to transfer it to a family member, allowing another decade of incompetence before the law can catch up with you. If the ATF wasn't so goddamned hog tied maybe the bad guys wouldn't have so many guns and we could lessen the restrictions on law abiding citiziens. Is your head really that far up your ass, or is this some schtick? There already is oversight and accountability. As stated before, the BATFE can, and will, investigate any dealer who isn't following the rules. The guy who owned this sporting goods store was investigated, found to be not complying with the law, and his license was stripped. Are you trying to suggest that the decision should not be subject to appeal? Are you suggesting that he is not innocent until proven guilty? If not, then what exactly are you suggesting? Maybe if our government wasn't so hell bent on banning things, making things illegal, creating more criminals in the process, perhaps we wouldn't have so many bad guys. Do you realize that the majority of criminals are in jail for drugs? Imagine what our society would be like if we were to offer these people treatment for their illness, rather than conditioning them to accept a life as society's underclass. We would have far fewer bad guys if fewer things resulted in elongated prison sentences. Once a person is branded a criminal, they have to accept a life of pumping gas. If they want to make more money than they would pumping gas, they need to sell drugs or steal shit, because nobody is going to employ them otherwise. Our nation's legal environment is what's creating the bad guys and you are suggesting that we make more things illegal, which would in turn create even more criminals. Great idea. Transferring the inventory to his father's license SHOULD be legal. Given that in the eyes of the law we are innocent until proven guilty, this has to be the lens through which we look before condemning the guy's father. We have no guarantees that he is going to shirk his duty to properly document transactions, nor should we assume that he will.
_________________
Feel free to contact me if you need legal assistance. I have a great lawyer that helped me with an ex who violated my privacy and kept harassing me on MySpace and Facebook. He's very good. And there is legal precedent. - linuxpro
He is hold back the legion of boom - skater18000
|
|
| |
|
|
|
12evanf
|
Post subject: Re: So, there's no ATF director because Senate wont approve one? Posted: Mon Jan 21, 2013 1:26 pm |
|
| NET Veteran |
|
|
Joined: Wed Mar 14, 2012 10:40 am
Posts: 1700
|
SmokinHawk wrote: There already is oversight and accountability. As stated before, the BATFE can, and will, investigate any dealer who isn't following the rules. The guy who owned this sporting goods store was investigated, found to be not complying with the law, and his license was stripped. Are you trying to suggest that the decision should not be subject to appeal? Are you suggesting that he is not innocent until proven guilty? If not, then what exactly are you suggesting?
Maybe if our government wasn't so hell bent on banning things, making things illegal, creating more criminals in the process, perhaps we wouldn't have so many bad guys. Do you realize that the majority of criminals are in jail for drugs? Imagine what our society would be like if we were to offer these people treatment for their illness, rather than conditioning them to accept a life as society's underclass? We would have far fewer bad guys if fewer things resulted in elongated prison sentences. Once a person is branded a criminal, they have to accept a life of pumping gas. If they want to make more money than they would pumping gas, they need to sell drugs or steal shit, because nobody is going to employ them otherwise. Our nation's legal environment is what's creating the bad guys and you are suggesting that we make more things illegal, which would in turn create even more criminals. Great idea.
Transferring the inventory to his father's license SHOULD be legal. Given that in the eyes of the law we are innocent until proven guilty, this has to be the lens through which we look before condemning the guy's father. We have no guarantees that he is going to shirk his duty to properly document transactions, nor should we assume that he will. From the ATF's Fact Sheet on the Federal Firearms License Revocation ProcessQuote: Part of ATF’s core mission is to protect the public from violent crime involving the use of firearms. The FFLs who willfully violate the laws and regulations preventing ATF from accomplishing its mission to protect the public we serve are few. Willfulness is not defined in the regulations but is defined by case law to mean the intentional disregard of a known legal duty or plain indifference to a licensee's legal obligations. In the case of an FFL who has willfully violated the law, has shown an intentional disregard for regulatory requirements, or has knowingly participated in criminal acts, revocation often becomes the only viable option. It should be noted, however, that ATF does not revoke for every willful violation it finds; and that revocation actions are seldom initiated until after an FFL has been educated on the requirements of the laws and regulations and given an opportunity to voluntarily comply with them but has failed to do so. Violations commonly cited in revocation cases include failure to account for firearms, failure to verify and document purchaser eligibility, failure to maintain records requisite for successful firearms tracing, and failure to report multiple sales of handguns. The ATF is under the heavy burden of proving "willful" intent on gun dealers' incompetence. If you play stupid, as in the case listed earlier, you can dodge the law and hang up the legal process for years. All the while operating your business of selling guns and not keeping track. Total bullshit cop out that you try to justify this. This is not justice. This is a joke.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
SmokinHawk
|
Post subject: Re: So, there's no ATF director because Senate wont approve one? Posted: Mon Jan 21, 2013 1:40 pm |
|
Joined: Thu Apr 30, 2009 9:29 am
Posts: 4726
Location: Not Umatilla, Oregon
|
12evanf wrote: SmokinHawk wrote: There already is oversight and accountability. As stated before, the BATFE can, and will, investigate any dealer who isn't following the rules. The guy who owned this sporting goods store was investigated, found to be not complying with the law, and his license was stripped. Are you trying to suggest that the decision should not be subject to appeal? Are you suggesting that he is not innocent until proven guilty? If not, then what exactly are you suggesting?
Maybe if our government wasn't so hell bent on banning things, making things illegal, creating more criminals in the process, perhaps we wouldn't have so many bad guys. Do you realize that the majority of criminals are in jail for drugs? Imagine what our society would be like if we were to offer these people treatment for their illness, rather than conditioning them to accept a life as society's underclass? We would have far fewer bad guys if fewer things resulted in elongated prison sentences. Once a person is branded a criminal, they have to accept a life of pumping gas. If they want to make more money than they would pumping gas, they need to sell drugs or steal shit, because nobody is going to employ them otherwise. Our nation's legal environment is what's creating the bad guys and you are suggesting that we make more things illegal, which would in turn create even more criminals. Great idea.
Transferring the inventory to his father's license SHOULD be legal. Given that in the eyes of the law we are innocent until proven guilty, this has to be the lens through which we look before condemning the guy's father. We have no guarantees that he is going to shirk his duty to properly document transactions, nor should we assume that he will. From the ATF's Fact Sheet on the Federal Firearms License Revocation ProcessQuote: Part of ATF’s core mission is to protect the public from violent crime involving the use of firearms. The FFLs who willfully violate the laws and regulations preventing ATF from accomplishing its mission to protect the public we serve are few. Willfulness is not defined in the regulations but is defined by case law to mean the intentional disregard of a known legal duty or plain indifference to a licensee's legal obligations. In the case of an FFL who has willfully violated the law, has shown an intentional disregard for regulatory requirements, or has knowingly participated in criminal acts, revocation often becomes the only viable option. It should be noted, however, that ATF does not revoke for every willful violation it finds; and that revocation actions are seldom initiated until after an FFL has been educated on the requirements of the laws and regulations and given an opportunity to voluntarily comply with them but has failed to do so. Violations commonly cited in revocation cases include failure to account for firearms, failure to verify and document purchaser eligibility, failure to maintain records requisite for successful firearms tracing, and failure to report multiple sales of handguns. The ATF is under the heavy burden of proving "willful" intent on gun dealers' incompetence. If you play stupid, as in the case listed earlier, you can dodge the law and hang up the legal process for years. All the while operating your business of selling guns and not keeping track. Total bullshit cop out that you try to justify this. This is not justice. This is a joke. If the burden of proof is too great for you, I hear things are just swell over in Russia. What you are asking for is to revoke the license of any gun dealer who makes a modest clerical error while circumventing their right to due process. You have a questionable sense of justice, at best.
_________________
Feel free to contact me if you need legal assistance. I have a great lawyer that helped me with an ex who violated my privacy and kept harassing me on MySpace and Facebook. He's very good. And there is legal precedent. - linuxpro
He is hold back the legion of boom - skater18000
|
|
| |
|
|
|
12evanf
|
Post subject: Re: So, there's no ATF director because Senate wont approve one? Posted: Mon Jan 21, 2013 1:47 pm |
|
| NET Veteran |
|
|
Joined: Wed Mar 14, 2012 10:40 am
Posts: 1700
|
SmokinHawk wrote: If the burden of proof is too great for you, I hear things are just swell over in Russia. What you are asking for is to revoke the license of any gun dealer who makes a modest clerical error while circumventing their right to due process. You have a questionable sense of justice, at best. Ok kidhawk, I see you have decided to read my mind too. The burden of proof is higher than any other business. I can't claim inventory to the IRS only to have it missing upon audit. Claiming "oops, it was an accident" does not cut it. We are treating gun dealers like children. The ATF is not allowed an electronic database, but is required to pore through hand written paper documents that can in no way be organized appropriately. Then force them to prove willful intent for missing guns, no matter the amount. Show me these things and I will show you a broken system.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
SmokinHawk
|
Post subject: Re: So, there's no ATF director because Senate wont approve one? Posted: Mon Jan 21, 2013 1:58 pm |
|
Joined: Thu Apr 30, 2009 9:29 am
Posts: 4726
Location: Not Umatilla, Oregon
|
12evanf wrote: SmokinHawk wrote: If the burden of proof is too great for you, I hear things are just swell over in Russia. What you are asking for is to revoke the license of any gun dealer who makes a modest clerical error while circumventing their right to due process. You have a questionable sense of justice, at best. Ok kidhawk, I see you have decided to read my mind too. The burden of proof is higher than any other business. I can't claim inventory to the IRS only to have it missing upon audit. Claiming "oops, it was an accident" does not cut it. We are treating gun dealers like children. The ATF is not allowed an electronic database, but is required to pore through hand written paper documents that can in no way be organized appropriately. Then force them to prove willful intent for missing guns, no matter the amount. Show me these things and I will show you a broken system. No, the burden of proof is the same as any other business (or individual, for that matter) accused of a crime. The prosecutor must prove, beyond a shadow of doubt, that there was an intent to commit a crime. Without intent (i.e. "will to cause an offense"), one cannot willfully disobey the law. Hence, in order to prove that they are guilty, the burden of proof is to show that the suspect (or business) acted in a way that was in willful violation of the law. It's not an easy task for any prosecutor, but our legal system was designed that way for a reason. Why can't the records be organized appropriately? Do the BATFE not have room for filing cabinets in their $1.2B budget? I can think of a good many ways to efficiently categorize these records. Furthermore, the BATFE only stores records from stores which have ceased operations. Until a gun dealer closes up shop, the records of sale are stored on premises.
_________________
Feel free to contact me if you need legal assistance. I have a great lawyer that helped me with an ex who violated my privacy and kept harassing me on MySpace and Facebook. He's very good. And there is legal precedent. - linuxpro
He is hold back the legion of boom - skater18000
|
|
| |
|
|
|
12evanf
|
Post subject: Re: So, there's no ATF director because Senate wont approve one? Posted: Mon Jan 21, 2013 2:17 pm |
|
| NET Veteran |
|
|
Joined: Wed Mar 14, 2012 10:40 am
Posts: 1700
|
SmokinHawk wrote: 12evanf wrote: SmokinHawk wrote: If the burden of proof is too great for you, I hear things are just swell over in Russia. What you are asking for is to revoke the license of any gun dealer who makes a modest clerical error while circumventing their right to due process. You have a questionable sense of justice, at best. Ok kidhawk, I see you have decided to read my mind too. The burden of proof is higher than any other business. I can't claim inventory to the IRS only to have it missing upon audit. Claiming "oops, it was an accident" does not cut it. We are treating gun dealers like children. The ATF is not allowed an electronic database, but is required to pore through hand written paper documents that can in no way be organized appropriately. Then force them to prove willful intent for missing guns, no matter the amount. Show me these things and I will show you a broken system. No, the burden of proof is the same as any other business (or individual, for that matter) accused of a crime. The prosecutor must prove, beyond a shadow of doubt, that there was an intent to commit a crime. Without intent (i.e. "will to cause an offense"), one cannot willfully disobey the law. Hence, in order to prove that they are guilty, the burden of proof is to show that the suspect (or business) acted in a way that was in willful violation of the law. It's not an easy task for any prosecutor, but our legal system was designed that way for a reason. Why can't the records be organized appropriately? Do the BATFE not have room for filing cabinets in their $1.2B budget? I can think of a good many ways to efficiently categorize these records. Furthermore, the BATFE only stores records from stores which have ceased operations. Until a gun dealer closes up shop, the records of sale are stored on premises. Different modes of culpability. Strict liability: the actor engaged in conduct and his mental state is irrelevant. Negligently: the actor is unaware of the attendant circumstances and the consequences of his conduct, but a "reasonable person" would have been aware. Recklessly: the actor is aware that the attendant circumstances exist, but nevertheless engages in the conduct that a "law-abiding person" would have refrained from. Knowingly: the actor is practically certain that his conduct will lead to the result. Purposefully: the actor has the "conscious object" of engaging in conduct and believes or hopes that the attendant circumstances exist.Thousands upon thousands upon thousands of handwritten documents, often written in pencil with water damage and riddled with rat turds, not allowed to be databased is an effective way to manage this nations 130,000 gun dealers and their inventories... We fundamentally disagree. I have offered a fair amount of evidence, I'm done wasting my time on your stupidity.... for now. 
|
|
| |
|
|
|
SmokinHawk
|
Post subject: Re: So, there's no ATF director because Senate wont approve one? Posted: Mon Jan 21, 2013 2:25 pm |
|
Joined: Thu Apr 30, 2009 9:29 am
Posts: 4726
Location: Not Umatilla, Oregon
|
12evanf wrote: SmokinHawk wrote: 12evanf wrote: Ok kidhawk, I see you have decided to read my mind too. The burden of proof is higher than any other business. I can't claim inventory to the IRS only to have it missing upon audit. Claiming "oops, it was an accident" does not cut it. We are treating gun dealers like children. The ATF is not allowed an electronic database, but is required to pore through hand written paper documents that can in no way be organized appropriately. Then force them to prove willful intent for missing guns, no matter the amount. Show me these things and I will show you a broken system. No, the burden of proof is the same as any other business (or individual, for that matter) accused of a crime. The prosecutor must prove, beyond a shadow of doubt, that there was an intent to commit a crime. Without intent (i.e. "will to cause an offense"), one cannot willfully disobey the law. Hence, in order to prove that they are guilty, the burden of proof is to show that the suspect (or business) acted in a way that was in willful violation of the law. It's not an easy task for any prosecutor, but our legal system was designed that way for a reason. Why can't the records be organized appropriately? Do the BATFE not have room for filing cabinets in their $1.2B budget? I can think of a good many ways to efficiently categorize these records. Furthermore, the BATFE only stores records from stores which have ceased operations. Until a gun dealer closes up shop, the records of sale are stored on premises. Different modes of culpability. Strict liability: the actor engaged in conduct and his mental state is irrelevant. Negligently: the actor is unaware of the attendant circumstances and the consequences of his conduct, but a "reasonable person" would have been aware. Recklessly: the actor is aware that the attendant circumstances exist, but nevertheless engages in the conduct that a "law-abiding person" would have refrained from. Knowingly: the actor is practically certain that his conduct will lead to the result. Purposefully: the actor has the "conscious object" of engaging in conduct and believes or hopes that the attendant circumstances exist.Thousands upon thousands upon thousands of handwritten documents, often written in pencil with water damage and riddled with rat turds, not allowed to be databased is an effective way to manage this nations 130,000 gun dealers and their inventories... We fundamentally disagree. I have offered a fair amount of evidence, I'm done wasting my time on your stupidity.... for now. This doesn't change the fact that the burden of proof is the same as any individual who has been charged with a crime. These modes of culpability you linked don't all universally apply to all crimes. Each crime may have different modes of culpability associated. For example, the crime of manslaughter implies negligence or recklessness as knowingly committing a homicide is considered murder.
_________________
Feel free to contact me if you need legal assistance. I have a great lawyer that helped me with an ex who violated my privacy and kept harassing me on MySpace and Facebook. He's very good. And there is legal precedent. - linuxpro
He is hold back the legion of boom - skater18000
|
|
| |
|
|
|
12evanf
|
Post subject: Re: So, there's no ATF director because Senate wont approve one? Posted: Mon Jan 21, 2013 2:37 pm |
|
| NET Veteran |
|
|
Joined: Wed Mar 14, 2012 10:40 am
Posts: 1700
|
SmokinHawk wrote: 12evanf wrote: Different modes of culpability. Strict liability: the actor engaged in conduct and his mental state is irrelevant. Negligently: the actor is unaware of the attendant circumstances and the consequences of his conduct, but a "reasonable person" would have been aware. Recklessly: the actor is aware that the attendant circumstances exist, but nevertheless engages in the conduct that a "law-abiding person" would have refrained from. Knowingly: the actor is practically certain that his conduct will lead to the result. Purposefully: the actor has the "conscious object" of engaging in conduct and believes or hopes that the attendant circumstances exist.Thousands upon thousands upon thousands of handwritten documents, often written in pencil with water damage and riddled with rat turds, not allowed to be databased is an effective way to manage this nations 130,000 gun dealers and their inventories... We fundamentally disagree. I have offered a fair amount of evidence, I'm done wasting my time on your stupidity.... for now. This doesn't change the fact that the burden of proof is the same as any individual who has been charged with a crime. These modes of culpability you linked don't all universally apply to all crimes. Each crime may have different modes of culpability associated. For example, the crime of manslaughter implies negligence or recklessness as knowingly committing a homicide is considered murder. What? There's different modes of culpability, "willfulness" being the highest? Like I just posted? Who would've thought?! The point is that the ATF is dealing with a higher burden of proof. Losing track of guns as a gun dealer, the ATF should only need to prove the actions reckless, at best. "Sorry Special Agent, I lost 300 guns, it was an accident. I will only do it as much as I want in the future because that will be an accident too. Prove me otherwise."
|
|
| |
|
|
|
SmokinHawk
|
Post subject: Re: So, there's no ATF director because Senate wont approve one? Posted: Mon Jan 21, 2013 2:57 pm |
|
Joined: Thu Apr 30, 2009 9:29 am
Posts: 4726
Location: Not Umatilla, Oregon
|
12evanf wrote: SmokinHawk wrote: 12evanf wrote: Different modes of culpability. Strict liability: the actor engaged in conduct and his mental state is irrelevant. Negligently: the actor is unaware of the attendant circumstances and the consequences of his conduct, but a "reasonable person" would have been aware. Recklessly: the actor is aware that the attendant circumstances exist, but nevertheless engages in the conduct that a "law-abiding person" would have refrained from. Knowingly: the actor is practically certain that his conduct will lead to the result. Purposefully: the actor has the "conscious object" of engaging in conduct and believes or hopes that the attendant circumstances exist.Thousands upon thousands upon thousands of handwritten documents, often written in pencil with water damage and riddled with rat turds, not allowed to be databased is an effective way to manage this nations 130,000 gun dealers and their inventories... We fundamentally disagree. I have offered a fair amount of evidence, I'm done wasting my time on your stupidity.... for now. This doesn't change the fact that the burden of proof is the same as any individual who has been charged with a crime. These modes of culpability you linked don't all universally apply to all crimes. Each crime may have different modes of culpability associated. For example, the crime of manslaughter implies negligence or recklessness as knowingly committing a homicide is considered murder. What? There's different modes of culpability, "willfulness" being the highest? Like I just posted? Who would've thought?! The point is that the ATF is dealing with a higher burden of proof. Losing track of guns as a gun dealer, the ATF should only need to prove the actions reckless, at best. "Sorry Special Agent, I lost 300 guns, it was an accident. I will only do it as much as I want in the future because that will be an accident too. Prove me otherwise." Actually, willfulness wasn't even on your list, though I would say that "recklessly", "knowingly", and "purposefully" are all homonyms of the adverb "willfully". The only difference between them being the following context: 1.) "Recklessly" - I'm gonna store these records here under this drippy pipe, even though they might be damaged by the water. 2.) "Knowingly" - I'm going to sell this gun without a record of sale or NICS check because I like to make money. 3.) "Purposefully" - I am going to sell this gun without a record of sale because I want to break the law. Don't these all seem like they are in willful violation of the law?
_________________
Feel free to contact me if you need legal assistance. I have a great lawyer that helped me with an ex who violated my privacy and kept harassing me on MySpace and Facebook. He's very good. And there is legal precedent. - linuxpro
He is hold back the legion of boom - skater18000
|
|
| |
|
|
|
12evanf
|
Post subject: Re: So, there's no ATF director because Senate wont approve one? Posted: Mon Jan 21, 2013 3:13 pm |
|
| NET Veteran |
|
|
Joined: Wed Mar 14, 2012 10:40 am
Posts: 1700
|
SmokinHawk wrote:
Actually, willfulness wasn't even on your list, though I would say that "recklessly", "knowingly", and "purposefully" are all homonyms of the adverb "willfully". The only difference between them being the following context:
1.) "Recklessly" - I'm gonna store these records here under this drippy pipe, even though they might be damaged by the water.
2.) "Knowingly" - I'm going to sell this gun without a record of sale or NICS check because I like to make money.
3.) "Purposefully" - I am going to sell this gun without a record of sale because I want to break the law.
Don't these all seem like they are in willful violation of the law?
You big dummy, I posted on this page the ATF's definition of "willfulness," since you have trouble reading my well thought out, cited posts, here it is again: Quote: Willfulness is not defined in the regulations but is defined by case law to mean the intentional disregard of a known legal duty or plain indifference to a licensee's legal obligations. INTENTIONAL DISREGARD If you want to see an example of the elasticity of the law the ATF must abide, look at the fuckin' Alabama case I posted earlier. This whole process shows we are making it easier for criminals and harder for law enforcement to do their job. Just the way the NRA and gun lobbies want it.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
SmokinHawk
|
Post subject: Re: So, there's no ATF director because Senate wont approve one? Posted: Mon Jan 21, 2013 3:40 pm |
|
Joined: Thu Apr 30, 2009 9:29 am
Posts: 4726
Location: Not Umatilla, Oregon
|
12evanf wrote: SmokinHawk wrote:
Actually, willfulness wasn't even on your list, though I would say that "recklessly", "knowingly", and "purposefully" are all homonyms of the adverb "willfully". The only difference between them being the following context:
1.) "Recklessly" - I'm gonna store these records here under this drippy pipe, even though they might be damaged by the water.
2.) "Knowingly" - I'm going to sell this gun without a record of sale or NICS check because I like to make money.
3.) "Purposefully" - I am going to sell this gun without a record of sale because I want to break the law.
Don't these all seem like they are in willful violation of the law?
You big dummy, I posted on this page the ATF's definition of "willfulness," since you have trouble reading my well thought out, cited posts, here it is again: Quote: Willfulness is not defined in the regulations but is defined by case law to mean the intentional disregard of a known legal duty or plain indifference to a licensee's legal obligations. INTENTIONAL DISREGARD If you want to see an example of the elasticity of the law the ATF must abide, look at the fuckin' Alabama case I posted earlier. This whole process shows we are making it easier for criminals and harder for law enforcement to do their job. Just the way the NRA and gun lobbies want it. Funny, they seem to have the same definition of "willfullness" that I do. Not sure why your panties are in a bunch over this. Any one of the three definitions I provided could be appropriate in describing a willful intent at breaking the law. What elasticity are you talking about? His business was afforded the same right to due process that all legal persons in the USA are afforded. The government has a burden to prove that the seller acted willfully, as opposed to accidentally. The case you cited in Alabama was obviously in a gray enough area that they spent 10 years in the appeals process. If anything about the justice system is broken, it's the speed at which this issue was brought to trial. If we didn't have stupid laws that turn crack heads into hardened criminals, clogging up the courts with this nonsense, it probably wouldn't have taken 10 years to yank the guy's FFL. There is a lot which can be done to expedite this process without making changes to the law.
_________________
Feel free to contact me if you need legal assistance. I have a great lawyer that helped me with an ex who violated my privacy and kept harassing me on MySpace and Facebook. He's very good. And there is legal precedent. - linuxpro
He is hold back the legion of boom - skater18000
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Seahawk Sailor
|
Post subject: Re: So, there's no ATF director because Senate wont approve one? Posted: Tue Jan 22, 2013 7:04 am |
|
| * Navy Badass * |
 |
|
Joined: Sat Mar 03, 2007 9:23 am
Posts: 16253
Location: Bothell
|
|
All businesses are equal, but some are more equal than others.
_________________ I blog, I tweet. When I'm not writing or goofing around on Seahawks.NET.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 14 guests |
| |
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum
|
|
Seahawks.NET is an independent fan site and not associated with the Seattle Seahawks or the NFL (National Football League).
All content within this Seahawks fan page is provided by, and for, Seattle Seahawks fans. Copyright © Seahawks.NET.
|
