Results 1 to 5 of 5

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

  1. #1
    Senior Member AirborneSapper7's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    South West Florida (Behind friendly lines but still in Occupied Territory)
    Posts
    117,696

    OBAMA'S ATF THREATENED WITH CONTEMPT CHARGE

    OBAMA'S ATF THREATENED WITH CONTEMPT CHARGE

    By NWV News writer Jim Kouri
    Posted 1:00 AM Eastern
    April 27, 2011
    © 2011 NewsWithViews.com

    Rep. Darrell Issa (R-CA), the Chairman of the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform, in a biting April 25 letter to Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives (ATF) Acting Director Kenneth E. Melson, criticized the Director for failing to produce any documents in response to a subpoena issued more almost a month ago on March 31.

    The subpoena was issued after ATF and Department of Justice officials failed to cooperate in good faith with the Committee's investigation, according to Rep. Issa.

    Media reports have raised questions about the handling of operations involving gun trafficking into Mexico http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2011/03/ ... 9031.shtml -- specifically the allegation that ATF has had a policy of permitting, and even encouraging, the movement of guns into Mexico by straw purchasers. This practice may have contributed to the deaths of hundreds on both sides of the border, including federal law enforcement agents.

    "The Department's internal policy to withhold documents from what it labels pending criminal investigations may not deprive Congress from obtaining those same documents if they are pertinent to a congressional investigation – particularly in a matter involving allegations that reckless and inappropriate decisions by top Justice Department officials may have contributed to the deaths of both U.S. and Mexican citizens," Chairman Issa wrote http://www.theatlanticwire.com/politics ... upt/21674/ in citing Supreme Court precedents and previous Congressional investigations.

    "Let me be clear: we are not conducting a concurrent investigation with the Department of Justice, but rather an independent investigation of the Department of Justice – specifically, of allegations that the reckless and inappropriate decisions of Department officials have created a serious public safety hazard. We are asking for documents that relate to decisions such officials made. Congress is legally entitled to all of these documents," stated the conservative lawmaker.

    Issa noted that the Committee's request for documents has been pending since March 16, 2011 and a request from Senate Judiciary Committee Ranking Member Charles Grassley has been pending since January.

    While the Department of Justice has not produced any documents, Issa's letter to Melson included several documents obtained elsewhere by the Committee indicating the Justice Department knew the public danger the operation created. The role of top Justice Department officials in approving the operation remains top concern for investigators.

    The committee’s ranking Democrat rejected Issa’s move, saying that DOJ has informed Issa on several occasions that the release of some of the requested documents would jeopardize ongoing investigations it is conducting, including one involving murder and international narcotics traffickers that resulted in a 53 count indictment of about 20 people.

    “Our committee has a responsibility to investigate allegations of waste, fraud and abuse,â€
    Join our efforts to Secure America's Borders and End Illegal Immigration by Joining ALIPAC's E-Mail Alerts network (CLICK HERE)

  2. #2
    Senior Member nomas's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    NC and Canada. Got a foot in both worlds
    Posts
    3,773
    Ya know what? Just quit farting around and DO IT! I want to see Obozo AND Holder go down for murder!

  3. #3
    Senior Member alamb's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Posts
    1,164
    Obama is acting like a dictator.

  4. #4
    Senior Member moptop's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 1970
    Posts
    446
    Why is it that the last two presidents ran under the claims that they will have transperant cabinets and that everyone should be held accountable but yet when their in office they seem to be the opisite of what they say am I the only one who notices?

  5. #5
    Senior Member AirborneSapper7's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    South West Florida (Behind friendly lines but still in Occupied Territory)
    Posts
    117,696



    Obama: We're working on gun control 'under the radar'

    Posted: April 26, 2011
    6:07 pm Eastern
    © 2011

    "I just want you to know that we are working on it," Barack Obama reportedly told Sarah Brady regarding gun control. "We have to go through a few processes, but under the radar."

    This interesting bit of news was reported in an April 11 Washington Post Lifestyle section story about Obama's gun-control and regulatory policy wonk Steve Croley. Toward the end of the article the writer, Jason Horowitz, mentions a March 30 meeting between Jim and Sarah Brady and White House Press Secretary Jay Carney during which the President "dropped in."

    Horowitz quotes Sarah Brady relating how President Obama gave his personal assurance that he and his administration were working hard on a gun-control agenda. Brady reported that Obama then told them about advancing the agenda "under the radar."

    Apparently Mrs. Brady either doesn't grasp the concept of "under the radar," or, more likely, she expected the reporter to be discreet and keep the "good news" about Obama's stealth operations to himself. Thankfully this reporter chose to report the news, so we have direct corroboration of Obama's sneak-attack against the Second Amendment.

    What is truly startling about this story is the way it has been totally ignored by the rest of the media. Compare the media's current silence with what happened during the 2000 presidential campaign when then NRA Vice-President (and GOP activist) Kayne Robinson told a group of rights supporters in California that electing Bush would mean "we'll have a president where we work out of their office, unbelievably friendly relations."

    The media went into a feeding frenzy over this comment to such a degree that Bush distanced himself from the NRA, publicly endorsed reinstatement of the Clinton Assault Weapons Ban and withdrew overt support for the Lawful Commerce in Arms Act (a law which shields firearms manufacturers from harassment lawsuits over non-faulty products). The story was carried repeatedly on virtually every major media outlet in the country – and it was not based on anything Bush himself had said.

    In Obama's case, the president himself purportedly claimed active support for a highly controversial agenda and admitted that he was violating his own promise of transparency in pursuit of that agenda. Yet the media ignores it.

    Even the folks at the Brady bunch are not spreading the news about the stunning reassurances from the president. There is nothing on their website discussing or even mentioning Obama's chat with Jim and Sarah. Just the fact that a group's leaders were cordially welcomed at the White House, much less given a private, informal meeting with the president would generally be something to crow about, but on their web site the big push right now is to "Tell President Obama to Ban Assault Clips!" (whatever the heck an "assault clip" is).

    Something else conspicuous in its absence on the Brady site is any mention of ATF's recent "study" on the importability of shotguns. Like the president's "under the radar" comment, the Brady bunch doesn't want to provide fodder for folks like me pointing out the truth.

    The president of the United States and his staff are actively engaged in a multi-faceted plot to increase restrictions on firearms ownership, and they are doing their best to keep the American people from knowing about it. The ATF shotgun importability "study" is a core component of that "under the radar" gun-control plot.

    As I have previously reported, the ATF "study" examines current laws, regulations and practices regarding the importability of shotguns based on whether they are considered to have a "sporting purpose" in accordance with the provisions of the Gun Control Act. Like a bank robber wearing a brightly colored hat to distract witnesses' attention from more important identifying features, the ATF "study" puts forward a bold list of features that they say generally distinguish non-sporting shotguns from sporting shotguns.

    As intended, the media, as well as the gun-rights community, have almost universally focused on this list of features to the exclusion of other critical items in the "study," most importantly the statement that the list is a guide, not a rule. It states that, while these features are strong indicators of a gun being non-sporting, and therefore unsuitable for importation, that the real test they intend to employ is one of application, not features.

    What that means is that the list of features is mostly show and the real test is whether the importer can demonstrate that these or similar guns – regardless of what features might be currently attached or how the gun might be currently configured – are commonly used for ATF-recognized sporting purposes such as hunting, trap and skeet shooting.

    Up to this point importers have been able to replace "non-sporting" features like higher capacity magazines, folding stocks and pistol-grips with more traditionally sporting style options. They have also simply removed superfluous items such as compensators, barrel shrouds and bayonet lugs.

    Under the guidelines set forth in the ATF "study," such cosmetic changes will no longer suffice. Importers will have to prove that these guns are actually, commonly used for sports ATF recognizes. The very popular 3-Gun and tactical shotgun competitions of the U.S. Practical Shooting Association, International Defensive Pistol Association and International Practical Shooting Confederation are specifically mentioned in the ATF study and dismissed as not being recognized sports because previous ATF rifle and handgun importability studies have not recognized these sports as sports. So preferred equipment for these very popular and rapidly growing international sports will be blocked from importation because ATF has not previously recognized them as sports, and they are not going to recognize them now because they have not previously recognized them. It is the logic of a merry-go-round.

    Some have suggested that a simple solution to the problem is to just manufacture clones of the non-importable, non-sporting shotguns right here in the good old USA. Unfortunately there is more to the story. The Gun Control Act prohibits importation of any shotgun with the exception of those which the attorney general determines to be "particularly suitable for sporting purposes." But the 1968 Gun Control Act is not the only place in federal law that applies the "sporting purposes" test. The National Firearms Act uses almost identical language when it declares that any firearm with a bore diameter of greater than .5 inches (a 12 gauge shotgun bore is about .73 inches) is a "destructive device," except for those shotguns that the attorney general determines to be particularly suitable for sporting purposes.

    Obama's "under the radar" assault on the Second Amendment is underway. One seemingly minor change in enforcement lays the groundwork for bans not just on importation, but also eventually on sale and possession, of several popular shotgun styles. And it is all taking place virtually undetected and unopposed because, as Obama himself has stated, it is "under the radar." The compliant media and even major gun-rights groups apparently have their radar turned off.

    http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=292025
    Join our efforts to Secure America's Borders and End Illegal Immigration by Joining ALIPAC's E-Mail Alerts network (CLICK HERE)

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •