Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Congess made sure the ATF did not have the resources to prosecute people that lied on 4473, ask them what their thought process was when they decided to gut the ATF.
False statements on a 4473 are only one part to the problem, a few hundred thousand applicants that should not have a gun were denied, overall the system works but not well enough.
One has no obligation to answer a simply made up scenario.
Lol... this thread just keeps getting sadder. Suddenly a verifiable event of ATF agents turning over case files on 20 straw purchasers and Arizona prosecutors telling them they can't do anything is a made up scenario. It's about as made up as Pearl Harbor, genius.
This was not the view of federal prosecutors. In a meeting on Jan. 5, 2010, Emory Hurley, the assistant U.S. Attorney in Phoenix overseeing the Fast and Furious case, told the agents they lacked probable cause for arrests, according to ATF records. Hurley's judgment reflected accepted policy at the U.S. Attorney's Office in Arizona. "[P]urchasing multiple long guns in Arizona is lawful," Patrick Cunningham, the U.S. Attorney's then–criminal chief in Arizona would later write. "Transferring them to another is lawful and even sale or barter of the guns to another is lawful unless the United States can prove by clear and convincing evidence that the firearm is intended to be used to commit a crime." ...
It was nearly impossible in Arizona to bring a case against a straw purchaser. The federal prosecutors there did not consider the purchase of a huge volume of guns, or their handoff to a third party, sufficient evidence to seize them. A buyer who certified that the guns were for himself, then handed them off minutes later, hadn't necessarily lied and was free to change his mind. Even if a suspect bought 10 guns that were recovered days later at a Mexican crime scene, this didn't mean the initial purchase had been illegal.
I know you won't read it b/c it shatters your understanding of the world. Are you going to be another one of these Conservatives that rather than admit you don't know what you're talking about, will just disappear from the thread? Probably.
Oh I see what you did. B/c there's not a question mark in {Explain how the Feds are "ignoring" a law when they bring the case to prosecutors and prosecutors say "You don't have a case."}, technically it's not a question. How clever.
Here: Are you ever going to man up and explain how the Feds are "ignoring" a law when they bring the case to prosecutors and prosecutors say "You don't have a case"?
The report I posted said only 6% of 4473 denials get looked into, see table 2. Then read table I where only 18 of the 62 referred to prosecution cases were declined to prosecute. So in 2010 of 76K denials only 62 were referred to prosection. The law really is not being inforced.
Lol... this thread just keeps getting sadder. Suddenly a verifiable event of ATF agents turning over case files on 20 straw purchasers and Arizona prosecutors telling them they can't do anything is a made up scenario. It's about as made up as Pearl Harbor, genius.
I'm going to make an educated guess that you are not aware of what Fast and Furious was and why federal prosecutors refused to make prosecutions here.
By June 2010 the agents had sent the U.S. Attorney's office a list of 31 suspects they wanted to arrest, with 46 pages outlining their illegal acts. But for the next seven months prosecutors did not indict a single suspect.
You will note that it does not state that they couldn't but rather that they simply didn't .
Holder should have been fired and charged himself over this. The totally mismanagement (that's being kind) of Fast and Furious doesn't prove any sort of point. It was a complete and total **** up by the government. The government lost total control over this screw up.
You really need to read up what a screw up Fast and Furious was before trying to use it as any sort of example.
There's the liberal solution for you, government isn't enforcing existing laws so lets write up some new ones, that will surely solve the problem. Actually making government employees DO THEIR JOB is obviously too radical solution to the problem.
The report I posted said only 6% of 4473 denials get looked into, see table 2. Then read table I where only 18 of the 62 referred to prosecution cases were declined to prosecute. So in 2010 of 76K denials only 62 were referred to prosection. The law really is not being inforced.
Don't let these facts get in your way, you are so far off base it is just silly.
Let's say everything you wrote is spot on... and? How does that have anything to do w/ making it easier to prosecute straw purchasers? Your argument is b/c we're not investigating every discrepancy on those forms, then it makes no sense to make it easier to prosecute obvious illegal activities? That makes sense to you?
And while we're at it: Are you ever going to man up and explain how the Feds are "ignoring" a law when they bring the case to prosecutors and prosecutors say "You don't have a case"?
Quote:
Originally Posted by pknopp
I'm going to make an educated guess that you are not aware of what Fast and Furious was and why federal prosecutors refused to make prosecutions here.
By June 2010 the agents had sent the U.S. Attorney's office a list of 31 suspects they wanted to arrest, with 46 pages outlining their illegal acts. But for the next seven months prosecutors did not indict a single suspect.
You will note that it does not state that they couldn't but rather that they simply didn't .
Holder should have been fired and charged himself over this. The totally mismanagement (that's being kind) of Fast and Furious doesn't prove any sort of point. It was a complete and total **** up by the government. The government lost total control over this screw up.
You really need to read up what a screw up Fast and Furious was before trying to use it as any sort of example.
... they didn't do anything b/c they couldn't convict them of anything. It's right there from the prosecutor's mouth. Learn. To. Read.
Is your argument that the gov't should have taken a case to trial where nothing illegal happened?
Again, from the person whose job it is to prosecute these things:
Quote:
"Transferring them to another is lawful and even sale or barter of the guns to another is lawful unless the United States can prove by clear and convincing evidence that the firearm is intended to be used to commit a crime."
AND
Quote:
A buyer who certified that the guns were for himself, then handed them off minutes later, hadn't necessarily lied and was free to change his mind. Even if a suspect bought 10 guns that were recovered days later at a Mexican crime scene, this didn't mean the initial purchase had been illegal.
So please explain how the Feds are "ignoring" a law when they bring the case to prosecutors and prosecutors say "You don't have a case"
OK I'll bite and try to answer the OP's silly question. "Explain how the Feds are "ignoring" a law when they bring the case to prosecutors and prosecutors say "You don't have a case."
Obviously as federal agents they should have known that the so called "case's" they were bringing to the prosecutors were to weak to be taken seriously,but of course they new this and were just covering there *ss. F&F was a huge embarrassment to the Obama administration and they wanted it to go away as quickly as possible
Let's say everything you wrote is spot on... and? How does that have anything to do w/ making it easier to prosecute straw purchasers? Your argument is b/c we're not investigating every discrepancy on those forms, then it makes no sense to make it easier to prosecute obvious illegal activities? That makes sense to you?
And while we're at it: Are you ever going to man up and explain how the Feds are "ignoring" a law when they bring the case to prosecutors and prosecutors say "You don't have a case"?
... they didn't do anything b/c they couldn't convict them. It's right there from the prosecutor's mouth. Learn. To. Read.
Is your argument that the gov't should have taken a case to trial where nothing illegal happened?
Again, from the person whose job it is to prosecute these things:
Your so dense. I posted the statistics and you continue to go on and on. The Feds don't even look into 94% of background check denials, let alone prosecute, they are not even considered, i.e. ignored. Now you want more laws to make the same thing illegal. The VP says we don't even have money to inforce the gun laws we have and you want another law to make the same thing illegal that wont be inforced. You are wasting everyone's time, your proposal will make no difference.
There's the liberal solution for you, government isn't enforcing existing laws so lets write up some new ones, that will surely solve the problem. Actually making government employees DO THEIR JOB is obviously too radical solution to the problem.
So please explain how the Feds are "ignoring" a law when they bring the case to prosecutors and prosecutors say "You don't have a case"
So please explain how the Feds are "ignoring" a law when they bring the case to prosecutors and prosecutors say "You don't have a case"
I guess I can play the copy and paste game as well.
Your so dense. I posted the statistics and you continue to go on and on. The Feds don't even look into 94% of background check denials, let alone prosecute, they are not even considered, i.e. ignored. Now you want more laws to make the same thing illegal. The VP says we don't even have money to inforce the gun laws we have and you want another law to make the same thing illegal that wont be inforced. You are wasting everyone's time, your proposal will make no difference.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
