- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
DOJ agent who illegally made short barrelled rifles, face no discipline
Posted on 2/7/14 at 10:39 am
Posted on 2/7/14 at 10:39 am
First.. the penalty, by law for making a short barrel rifle (SBR) without obtaining a $200 tax stamp and approval:
Violations of the Act are punishable by up to 10 years in federal prison and forfeiture of all devices or firearms in violation, and the individual's right to own or possess firearms in the future. The Act provides for a penalty of $10,000 for certain violations. A willful attempt to evade or defeat a tax imposed by the Act is a felony punishable by up to five years in prison and a $100,000 fine ($500,000 in the case of a corporation or trust), under the general tax evasion statute. For an individual, the felony fine of $100,000 for tax evasion could be increased to $250,000
Meanwhile, a guy faces a felony in NY for having an inoperable shotgun shell in the back of his pickup truck.
Violations of the Act are punishable by up to 10 years in federal prison and forfeiture of all devices or firearms in violation, and the individual's right to own or possess firearms in the future. The Act provides for a penalty of $10,000 for certain violations. A willful attempt to evade or defeat a tax imposed by the Act is a felony punishable by up to five years in prison and a $100,000 fine ($500,000 in the case of a corporation or trust), under the general tax evasion statute. For an individual, the felony fine of $100,000 for tax evasion could be increased to $250,000
quote:
MADISON, Wis. (AP) — A former state Department of Justice drug agent accused his colleagues last year of illegally modifying their state-issued rifles, according to emails the agency released Thursday.
The Associated Press obtained the emails through an open records request for materials related to former Division of Criminal Investigation Special Agent Dan Bethards. DOJ fired Bethards in October after he accused his supervisor of weapons violations.
Bethards wrote in a January 2013 email to DCI Administrator Dave Matthews that multiple agents were shortening the barrels on their state-issued and personal rifles without registering the modifications with the U.S. Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives. Bethards didn't name any agents but alleged multiple agents were guilty of federal felonies.
DOJ spokeswoman Dana Brueck said the ATF investigated the allegations and determined one weapon had been improperly modified. The gun was reconfigured to conform with ATF regulations and no one was disciplined, she said.
quote:
"The facts in this matter convinced us (the) agent had acted in 'good faith' and inadvertently violated compliance regulations," Brueck said. "We brought the matter to the ATF's attention, and it was immediately remedied."
quote:
In December 2012, Bethards accused Jay Smith, his supervisor in DCI's now-shuttered Superior field office, of illegally selling and manufacturing guns and possessing a stolen machine gun. Bethards later sent out emails to other law enforcement agencies claiming DOJ had done nothing with his allegations.
The emails released Thursday indicate Matthews alerted ATF of the allegations within days of receiving them. That agency did investigate Smith but didn't file any charges. Deputy Attorney General Kevin St. John wrote in Bethards' termination letter that his allegations were baseless and he didn't conduct himself honestly.
The state Department of Workforce Development plans to hold a hearing in May on Bethards' complaint that DOJ retaliated against him over the Smith allegations.
Meanwhile, a guy faces a felony in NY for having an inoperable shotgun shell in the back of his pickup truck.
5
Posted on 2/7/14 at 10:45 am to Alahunter
quote:
"The facts in this matter convinced us (the) agent had acted in 'good faith' and inadvertently violated compliance regulations," Brueck said. "We brought the matter to the ATF's attention, and it was immediately remedied."
wow they do not allow citizens to act in good faith, we have to know the laws or else
Posted on 2/7/14 at 10:48 am to Alahunter
Meh. I have no reason to doubt the wisdom of the investigators who decided in the Wisconsin matter to not charge, or impose "discipline".
The New York case involving an "inoperable" shot gun shell sounds real fishy, but New York being the land of loons, there's no telling what they'll do. There's pobably more to the story, but it suffices to say that I oppose restrictions on the possession of common ammunition.
The New York case involving an "inoperable" shot gun shell sounds real fishy, but New York being the land of loons, there's no telling what they'll do. There's pobably more to the story, but it suffices to say that I oppose restrictions on the possession of common ammunition.
Posted on 2/7/14 at 10:51 am to ninthward
quote:This is a true statement, but law enforcment and criminal justice system employees frequently use discretion built into the system regarding who to prosecute, and the intentions of the person involved is a huge factor that is considered.
wow they do not allow citizens to act in good faith, we have to know the laws or else
Posted on 2/7/14 at 11:03 am to Alahunter
Remind me what Randy Weaver did again?
ETA: I thought sawing off a shotgun meant having your wife shot on your front porch by the ATF.
ETA: I thought sawing off a shotgun meant having your wife shot on your front porch by the ATF.
This post was edited on 2/7/14 at 11:07 am
Posted on 2/7/14 at 11:04 am to son of arlo
Exactly. And his wife and son lost their lives over it, with no real discipline to the Feds involved in those shootings as well. Another whitewash completed, with Schumer's full support.
Posted on 2/7/14 at 11:20 am to Alahunter
quote:
with no real discipline to the Feds involved in those shootings as well.
When NBC's Gregory held up a 30 round mag on Meet the Press broadcasted to the entire North American continent in clear violation of the local law, you can start to comprehend the reality of it all. He was guilty as sin, yet went unpunished.
What conclusions do you draw from that?
Posted on 2/7/14 at 11:42 am to Jimbeaux
I'm with Jimbeaux. At least from what I've read, the result in the DOJ matter sounds sensible while the NY matter, which I am only learning of now, sounds absurb.
A broader point: I believe our society has elevated "consistency" to a far too exalted status. Especially when coupled with eyes ill-equipped to see nuance, striving for consistency can actually lead to bizarre results when the distinguishing aspects of various situations are not accounted for. Be wary of "zero tolerance" policies and "mandatory" sentencing. Be more accepting of the risks associated with letting those in positions of responsibility exercise judgment. Indeed, demand that they do so and at intervals, hold them accountable for their judgments.
Just my .02 and it may not be worth even that!
A broader point: I believe our society has elevated "consistency" to a far too exalted status. Especially when coupled with eyes ill-equipped to see nuance, striving for consistency can actually lead to bizarre results when the distinguishing aspects of various situations are not accounted for. Be wary of "zero tolerance" policies and "mandatory" sentencing. Be more accepting of the risks associated with letting those in positions of responsibility exercise judgment. Indeed, demand that they do so and at intervals, hold them accountable for their judgments.
Just my .02 and it may not be worth even that!
Posted on 2/7/14 at 12:04 pm to N.O. via West-Cal
quote:
Especially when coupled with eyes ill-equipped to see nuance
Printing this out to stick in the glovebox incase I get stopped by the police in a traffic situation.
"Hello officer! What's that? Of course I rolled through that stop sign, but it was only because I wished to maintain my momentum thereby reducing the expenditure of carbon energy in my tank. If you wish to write me a ticket, it will only demonstrate you have eyes ill-equipped to see nuance."
Posted on 2/7/14 at 1:43 pm to N.O. via West-Cal
quote:
A broader point: I believe our society has elevated "consistency" to a far too exalted status. Especially when coupled with eyes ill-equipped to see nuance, striving for consistency can actually lead to bizarre results when the distinguishing aspects of various situations are not accounted for. Be wary of "zero tolerance" policies and "mandatory" sentencing. Be more accepting of the risks associated with letting those in positions of responsibility exercise judgment. Indeed, demand that they do so and at intervals, hold them accountable for their judgments. Just my .02 and it may not be worth even that!
While I agree with your outlook on the zero tolerance, it seems the only ones who get a sensible look are Federal LE, and not the average citizen. If there is zero tolerance being applied to citizens, it must be applied to LE as well (or media).
This post was edited on 2/7/14 at 1:43 pm
Posted on 2/7/14 at 2:01 pm to son of arlo
"If you wish to write me a ticket, it will only demonstrate you have eyes ill-equipped to see nuance."
Posted on 2/7/14 at 2:06 pm to Alahunter
"While I agree with your outlook on the zero tolerance, it seems the only ones who get a sensible look are Federal LE, and not the average citizen. If there is zero tolerance being applied to citizens, it must be applied to LE as well (or media)."
I understand where you're coming from, but take a different view. How is applying zero tolerance to the DOJ guy going to help the rest of us? I think it just reinforces the misguided notion that it is OK to make poor decisions if everyone is "treated the same." Instead, I say use this DOJ incident as an example of what LE should do with everyone in truly similar circumstances. Someone may actually listen one day (see current backlash against mandatory sentencing and the decriminalization of cannabis).
I understand where you're coming from, but take a different view. How is applying zero tolerance to the DOJ guy going to help the rest of us? I think it just reinforces the misguided notion that it is OK to make poor decisions if everyone is "treated the same." Instead, I say use this DOJ incident as an example of what LE should do with everyone in truly similar circumstances. Someone may actually listen one day (see current backlash against mandatory sentencing and the decriminalization of cannabis).
Posted on 2/7/14 at 2:14 pm to N.O. via West-Cal
quote:
How is applying zero tolerance to the DOJ guy going to help the rest of us?
when those in positions of power are forced to abide by the same rules as the rest, it's a good thing. When they aren't prosecuted for the same offense a regular joe is, it gives them a feeling of entitlement and puts them on a power trip.
quote:
I say use this DOJ incident as an example of what LE should do with everyone in truly similar circumstances
I would agree. Unfortunately, you have many areas, where those in power, are quick to cast a double standard and imprison people under the same set of circumstances, even less at times.
Posted on 2/7/14 at 2:32 pm to Alahunter
quote:
when those in positions of power are forced to abide by the same rules as the rest, it's a good thing. When they aren't prosecuted for the same offense a regular joe is, it gives them a feeling of entitlement and puts them on a power trip.
At the risk of sounding Clintonesque, what do you mean by law, and what gives it meaning?
If you told me there was an American President who enacted federal laws about sexual harrassment on federal property while shaking his bony finger at Republicans blaming them for anti-feminist behavior, and then jizzed on an intern in the Oval office... well then, I'd just have to say those laws mean nothing.
Posted on 2/7/14 at 2:42 pm to son of arlo
quote:
At the risk of sounding Clintonesque, what do you mean by law, and what gives it meaning?
NFA act of 1968.
And technically, I said rules, not law.
I understand LE have some weapons that aren't allowed to citizens, but when they modify personal weapons and in turn make them illegal weapons, they shouldn't slide. I can guarantee you not one regular joe would go without losing his right to bear arms if the case happened and the individual didn't have big time connections.
Posted on 2/7/14 at 5:07 pm to Alahunter
Is there a link for this? I would love to know how they were shortening their barrels. This sounds like subpar reporting
Posted on 2/7/14 at 5:09 pm to Alahunter
(no message)
This post was edited on 2/7/14 at 5:10 pm
Posted on 2/7/14 at 5:10 pm to Alahunter
quote:
but when they modify personal weapons and in turn make them illegal weapons,
From what you posted these were not personal weapons, but issued weapons. And again I would love to know how they were shortening their barrles
Posted on 2/7/14 at 7:58 pm to Chappy
quote:
From what you posted these were not personal weapons, but issued weapons
It's still a violation of the NFA act of 68 to shorten a barrel without a tax stamp on your own.
I would assume either removal of a flash suppressor leaving it below 16", or cutting the barrel so that the overall length was below 16".
Here's a link to the article, released from the AP
Wis. agent: Colleagues improperly modified guns
By TODD RICHMOND, Associated Press | February 6, 2014 | Updated: February 6, 2014 5:48pm
Posted on 2/7/14 at 8:39 pm to Alahunter
Any and every gov't on Earth is and will always be a mecca of hypocrisy.
Page 1 of 2
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News