Ryan Horsley presents the latest BATFU outrage in a guest post by Len Savage.
Go and read it--you won't believe it. Or sadly, you will.
This is the way a government agency runs under "Maximum Mike"--within the administration of the "Vote Freedom First" president who gun owners put in office.
Chareltonhest sent me a link to a related thread on AR15.com. The comments to pay particular attention to are by "Bladerunner 2347."
Friday, January 11, 2008
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
6 comments:
This on point enough to send to the grandstanding shitheads in DC?
"Sir, I am writing to you today to once again express my outrage at the BATFE and their lack of accountability, specifically in the case of US vs.. Olofson. The agency seems to be able to operate outside the law. I'll clarify that statement. They have no written testing procedures unlike countless other federal agencies. There are rules, regulations, and controls put on the amount of water a toilet can use per flush, the broadcast signal that TV stations can use, but still there are no standards for the BATFE to use when testing a firearm to determine if it is malfunctioning, something that can deprive an honest man his right to own a firearm for life.
Until you demand and support a complete overhaul of this agency's standards and operational principals I will never vote for you again. I will spend my free time trying to convince everyone I possibly can to do the same. I will donate any money I can to anyone opposing you. You serve the citizens and took an oath to uphold and defend the constitution. Allowing an agency of the federal government to operate in such an unaccountable manner and without a simple set of written guidelines is to allow the constitution to be shredded and thrown out.
If you wish to reply please don't waste an envelope and paper, I'm tired of the government wasting money destroying the lives and trampling the rights of American citizens. A form letter response only adds insult to injury."
I'm tempted to follow it up with a letter demanding federal laws "for the children" of course to mandate FM receivers in every TV so that they can only function a total of 2 hours a day, neither of which would be during the hysterical news hours so that potential jurors can't be filled full of damn propaganda.
From the end of the thread at ARFCOM: "...and the .fed cop told him to pound sand to get his guns/gear back. Tax time is coming and they still have his computer...."
And that, I predict, is exactly what is about to happen in Cleveland with Mayor Jackson's CPD/F Troop campaign to get "illegal guns" off the street. You know d--ned well they'll scoop up some legal guns too, "just until we make sure your CHL is on the level" (leaving aside the whole CHL question, a controversy I recognize fully).
You think those poor souls will get their weapons back? Sure they will.
I have to admit, their free reign has got me scared. They blatantly trample your rights, suppress information,manufacture evidence, and pay for testimony. Judges do nothing and what is worse WE do nothing, why should we expect anything less. These people including the judges are committing treason, they are comfortable because they know no one can touch them. I seriously thought of citizens arrest but that is laughable. In my heart I know there is only one way to stop this, to send a clear message, but I'm afraid there isn't enough support amongst us.
Hey, just a question as to photobucket. I can't EVER save pictures from them. Is there a trick, or do you have to join or what?
I did suggest one way to do something about this abuse, but it's a bit extreme and illegal...not immoral, or unconstitutional, just illegal. Oh, and about 0% chance of being successful. At least I'm trying.
I may be wrong and I hope I am, but it must be noted the judge in this case is being praised for not buying into the ATF's propaganda. However, I have an uneasy feeling that is only his public posture. I do expect a different posture when the trial gets underway, much like that traitor to the United States of America, Judge Jimm Larry Hendren did after meeting privately with the ATF.
Here is why I have this uneasy feeling. Judge Calvert has been informed by the AUSA that he has no evidence, no documention, no knowledge of the case, no knowledge of the laws pertaining to the case. No knowledge of cases in which precedent has been set. Yet he has still laid charges and accused a man of a crime.
By his own admission the AUSA had no reason or authority to do so, in light of the fact of how little he knows about any of it. That constitutes a fraud on the court, yet he is not warming a bed in the county jail for contempt of court as would any other citizen who made such admissions to a judge. Nor has the judge ordered charges be filed against the AUSA for attempted denial of civil rights to a citizen, another crime the AUSA has committed.
The agents of the ATF and their legal representatives have refused to supply documentation and other evidence to the court upon which they say their case is based and tell the judge he must accept their word for it. Yet they are not warming beds in the jailhouse,either, as would any other citizen who basically told a judge "It's none of your Goddamned business."
So, in view of recent history in other courtrooms and other jurists, I strongly suspect Judge Calvert is playing to the public and his trial demeanor will be in compliance the demands of the rogue agency and their cohort in crime the AUSA.
I sincerely hope I am wrong. I do hope Judge Calvert is more of a man than Jimm Larry Hendren, and an honest servant of the law. However, I must question his lack of sanction against the outrageous acts performed and attempted by the ATF and the AUSA against the law, against himself, against his court and against a private citizen.
I fear what he hasn't done is more telling of his future conduct than what he has done and said. No other participant in his courtroom would be allowed such latitude without judicial sanction. I do truly fear the latitude displayed here tells us how he will rule in the trial.
Of course, it is possible he is an honest man and will conduct himself accordingly, but he has generated a cloud of doubt by his refusal to sanction the government's agents for their already committed misconduct in his courtroom.
This sounds like a strict liability "offense," since mens rea is irrelevant. That's exactly how the ATF is treating it.
If I remember correctly, strict liability laws/convictions have consistently been ruled unconstitutional or the convictions were overturned when they result in serious punishment (excluding statutory rape in many states). I don't know what Olofson is facing, but I think it's serious, hence he could use an 'unjust strict liability' defense.
Post a Comment