IG report critical of "Operation Gunrunner"
Story here. It does repeat the false mantra that "80 percent" of guns confiscated in Mexico come from the US. But it notes that ATFE does not cooperate or share intel with ICE, and ATFE tracing operations in Mexico get little cooperation with ATFE in the US, and supervisors pushing small investigations that can be completed quickly rather than larger ones.
Needless to say, the agency says that if it just had more money and laws it wouldn't be incompetent: "One senior ATF official, who spoke on condition of anonymity, said that many of the problems identified in the report stem from a lack of funding from Congress and weak U.S. gun laws, including the absence of a specific statute making weapons trafficking a federal crime."
UPDATE: yes, the "we need another law" excuse is especially lame, since it's already illegal to export firearms without permission, to engage in the business of dealing in firearms without a license, to transfer guns to a nonresident of your State, to transfer guns having reason to believe they would be used in crime, etc., etc..
If there is no statute making "weapons trafficking" a federal crime, then why is it treated as one? Isn't such treatment then a crimnal act? And what, by the way, does "trafficking" mean? Occasional sales? Cross borders (school board, county, state) ? Driving down the road in heavy traffick with one in your car?
BATF should be charged under RICO for maintaining their racket in as unlawful and corrupt a manner as possible.
Posted by: Anonymous at September 21, 2010 03:00 PM
I thought that the International Trafficking In Arms Regulations (ITAR) made it illegal?
Posted by: Anonymous at September 21, 2010 05:46 PM
"Needless to say, the agency says that if it just had more money and laws it wouldn't be incompetent:"
This is the theory of bureaucratic unfalsibility. Success demands more be spent to get better results. Failure is evidence more money is required to get results.
Posted by: Bombloader at September 21, 2010 10:18 PM
I also thought that the ITAR had made this illegal.
Posted by: assault defence at September 22, 2010 08:06 AM
Sorry but Congress does not have the constitutional authority to make weapons trafficking a crime. Congress has three grants of power to make things crimes. Two are in Article 1, Section 8 and their existence in that section negates any possibility of the necessary and proper restriction allowing Congress the power to make other things crimes. If there were inherent, implied, or grants under the necessary and proper clause, the inclusion of these two grants is totally unnecessary. Reading the Constitution in that manner demonstrates that the reader believes the Framers had no idea what they were doing. The third is in Article 3, Section 3 and provide the authority for Congress to punish treason, a power I remind you NOT inherent in our system of government, which the explicit statement in Article 3, Section 3 proves.
All other police powers except those granted were reserved to the States just as the majority of Constitution texts from the 1800s state.
Posted by: fwb at September 22, 2010 01:43 PM
FWB, I think you'll find that your version of the scope of the Constitutional grants in Art I sec. 8 ended with US S.Ct. decision in the 1820's.
Posted by: SPQR at September 22, 2010 07:29 PM
Sorry BUT the SC, because it is subordinate to the superior Constitution, has absolutely no authority to interpret the Constitution, to tell We the People what it means. Can one decide the extent of one's creator. Next time you go into work tell YOUR boss his/er job. Let me know the outcome.
When the SC claims the power to decide the meaning of the Constitution, it is usurping a role not granted, not even considered by the Framers. It's all about stealing power by lying, cheating and stealing.
While my version may be "old", it is truth based on the text. There is no more on which to judge. No one can determine the "intent" or "extent" beyond what is written. That level of government is what we must return to IF we are to get these usurpers under control. Regardless of intentions (usually negative and the road to Hell is paved with good intentions) the Constitution is not living except for the life that can be breathed into it through amendment. SC interpretation is a false way of by-passing amendments.
If you wish to tacitly accept the lies, then you have the liberty to do so. I shall not go silently into the night. I do not buy into their lies.
Tiocfaidh ar la!
Posted by: fwb at September 23, 2010 08:34 AM