About Bashing the BATF

[Liberty]

We got politely chastised on another sub forum, and I am trying to figure out what we did wrong! and maybe clarify the rules, so it might be a a little clearer and we can avoid the misunderstandings. It was in a thread about the BATFE seemingly overstepping their bounds. I would have thought that the BATFE would be fair game. As long as the agents and employee

I didn't have any issues with rants that were about the action s in the OP. However, the rants I was referring to included name calling and generalizations about a whole department and that is wanted on our Forum.

This is the BATFE? We would be hard pressed to to find many on this this group that doesn't loath the very existence of them. Are we restricted from bad mouthing Nazi's, Communist and other deniers of civil rights too? or is it just this thread? I believe it is a fair statement, noninflamatory and not particularly profound to state that the BATFE is an overzealous, waste of money and manpower, unnecessary, and probably completely out of bounds of our constitution. Bad mouthing these folks don't seem to be breaking or stretching the rules. It is on topic because the original posts was about over zealous actions of the BATFE, calling the BATFE out as a department should be be considered controversial on this site because they are almost all universally hated by every freedom loving gun owner. and I have never ever seen a BATFE fan once not ever.

Is just the BATFE or is it every government or department, that we aren't allowed to speak badly of? While I am sure there are some worthy of badmouthing I doubt there is one anywhere more worthy than the BATFE.

I'm not trying to be argumentative, but just trying to understand the boundries and the limits to which we are to respect. It is just that I always thought it was pretty much understood that that the BATFE is not a friend to us gun owners, and I'm confused on why we can't state that on the the forums.

[roman3667]

Wow. Censoring members opinions on a pro gun forum??? Very interesting. I always thought that a healthy debate was good for reasoning. Makes me uncomfortable if folks are not allowed to discuss a topic like our government. Unless of course there is a policy or rule forbidding controversial topics.

[WildBill]

Wow. Censoring members opinions on a pro gun forum??? Very interesting. I always thought that a healthy debate was good for reasoning. Makes me uncomfortable if folks are not allowed to discuss a topic like our government. Unless of course there is a policy or rule forbidding controversial topics.

Rule 9. Blatant, global, or rampant law enforcement bashing is prohibited. Discussions of specific identifiable events presented factually are fine.

[joe817]

I agree with Wild Bill's assessment.

[Liberty]

Wow. Censoring members opinions on a pro gun forum??? Very interesting. I always thought that a healthy debate was good for reasoning. Makes me uncomfortable if folks are not allowed to discuss a topic like our government. Unless of course there is a policy or rule forbidding controversial topics.

Rule 9. Blatant, global, or rampant law enforcement bashing is prohibited. Discussions of specific identifiable events presented factually are fine.

Most gunowners or gun owning advocates don't think of the BATFE as a normal LEO, I believe it is fair top say that most of us believe most state and local LEO are the good guys who are out to protect us good citizens. I don't believe that hardly any of us can accept that the BATF is looking out for us or are in anyway out to protect us. They are more of a threat to our way of life and freedom than bad guys. Even if we follow the law to the letter they keep trying to find ways of either making criminals of us or to make our every day activities.

To my knowledge their has never been any censorship on bashing the the BATFE on this forum, although one mod seemed to indicate we shouldn't. I opened the thread a couple of weeks ago to clarify the issue or at least discuss it. THe moderators and the owner of the board never responded to my post, so I assume its OK to trash the BATFE on this board. although I do believe we shouldn't make make slanderous or libelous statements especially about individuals. Generalized statements about the uselessness and recognizing them as the enemy seems only appropriate.

[roman3667]

Good points and I agree. Thanks.

[Griz44]

I know this is a little late since the thread is getting aged, however I felt it necessary to put in my .02 worth.

The BATFE is like every law enforcement agency, they are simply doing the job they were hired to do. Some of them get a little carried away doing the job.
I have had a very good experiences with them. SInce getting my FFL, I have gained a respect for what they do, and for the most part, how they go about doing it.
My initial contact with them was all by mail and phone, and like most big organizations, was somewhat frustrating.
When the application finally cleared (MONTHS of waiting) I was contacted by phone for the interview and inspection portion of the application.
They arrived at my home (I work out of a shop on the back of the house) they were prompt and on time, and very courteous.
The interview was very thourough and done very professionally. This was a couple about 45 minutes of Q&A. It was easy to tell that at least some of the questions were geared like a pysch profile.
After the interview, one of them left and the lady that stayed behind did the inspection and the training. She inspected my safe, the alarm system, the locks on the house, etc....
It was kept profession and no personal questions were asked. After the inspection, came the training.
We took several hours to pace through the paperwork, the forms, the books, the rules, the law, storage requirements, inventory tracking, etc.....
Once again, very complete information.
When we were done, she left her card, and told me that if I ever needed anything, even just advice, to call her.
I have to leave a message every time. But the call is answered that day every time. I get concise, clear answers and a no bull, no run-around reply.

If we have to have a regulatory department for guns (which I do not believe is constitutional) then this approach is probably as good as it gets. (for the government anyway)

Do not "loath" them, they are people like us, who have been assigned a job to do.
If you do not want them to exist, then GO VOTE and get the libs out of government and repeal the laws that created them in the first place.

[Rex B]

From talking to FFLs in DFW, you experience seems typical.
I think there are two sides to the bureau - licensing,and enforcement. The licensing folks seem to be as described above, polite professionals doing a job as well as they can.
The side we have a problem with is the enforcement side, whose long history of abuse and thuggery is well documented. We ignore that at our peril.

[TraCoun]

I have many reservations about the BATF. But their stock rose in my mind when I found out that when gunowners in NOLA were wondering where their guns had been taken after Katrina, it was the BATF that told the NRA where the guns could be found.
TraCoun

[marksiwel]

So the first post in this thread was in June 2009, it was ignored until August 2009 now its April 2010

Just making sure of that.

I get the feeling that people who are concerned about LEO "Bashing" tend to get more offended on the local level (Local Police, Sheriffs departments ect) the cops you run into on the day to day , than they are to be offended by "The Feds" ATF, FBI, CIA, HOMELAND Security, Secret Service, TSA where we routinely BASH them because they are less popular/less familiar.

We dont deal with the ATF much and when we do its BAD, REAL BAD.
They do have a long history of abuses (Ruby Ridge, Waco, stepping on a kitten (That really happened)) and Captain Dreadlocks shooting himself in the leg on youtube have helped paint them as arrogant fools. But I've had ZERO problems with the ATF in my life because I dont really cross into their circles.
Now if they showed up at my door asking about my gun purchases, I would be

[tacticool]

they are simply doing the job they were hired to do.

"The fact that a person acted pursuant to order of his Government or of a superior does not relieve him from responsibility"

[gigag04]

"The Feds" ATF, FBI, CIA, HOMELAND Security, Secret Service, TSA where we routinely BASH them because they are less popular/less familiar.

TSA /= Law Enforcement...no special agents.

[chabouk]

"The Feds" ATF, FBI, CIA, HOMELAND Security, Secret Service, TSA where we routinely BASH them because they are less popular/less familiar.

TSA /= Law Enforcement...no special agents.

TSA cannot be LE and do the job they do. It's that whole pesky 4th Amendment thing.

[marksiwel]

"The Feds" ATF, FBI, CIA, HOMELAND Security, Secret Service, TSA where we routinely BASH them because they are less popular/less familiar.

TSA /= Law Enforcement...no special agents.

TSA cannot be LE and do the job they do. It's that whole pesky 4th Amendment thing.

I see. so how is their treating us like criminals with no due process and They being under the Department of Homeland secuirty NOT infringing on our 4th rights?
You say Potato/ Tomato you know?

[jimlongley]

"The Feds" ATF, FBI, CIA, HOMELAND Security, Secret Service, TSA where we routinely BASH them because they are less popular/less familiar.

TSA /= Law Enforcement...no special agents.

TSA cannot be LE and do the job they do. It's that whole pesky 4th Amendment thing.

I see. so how is their treating us like criminals with no due process and They being under the Department of Homeland secuirty NOT infringing on our 4th rights?
You say Potato/ Tomato you know?

TSA does employ LEOs and does a LE job, but I have to ask, how are they infringing on the 4th?