waynebar 52 Posted July 21, 2009 Report Share Posted July 21, 2009 Quote Link to post Share on other sites
VanKiller 322 Posted July 21, 2009 Report Share Posted July 21, 2009 I don't think anyone expected them to just accept being kicked to the curb by a state gov......They have their jobs to protect. Just start talking about doing away with the IRS and using a federal sales tax, and see what happens. Those govt workers are very territorial.....................kinda like a dog with rabies............. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
lakedweller 10 Posted July 21, 2009 Report Share Posted July 21, 2009 I fail to see how this shocks people. The Feds do not see that the states rights trump what the Feds want. The constitution is just a piece of paper and only applies when it backs up Fags who want to marry, quotas for minorities, and free speech for all the Muslims in this country that want to impose sharia law. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
elvis christ 451 Posted July 21, 2009 Report Share Posted July 21, 2009 Mike Vanderboegh's response: http://sipseystreetirregulars.blogspot.com...-letter-to.html An Open Letter to Carson W. Carroll Assistant Director, BATFE Washington, DC 20226 Dear Carson, I am in receipt of a copy of your "Open Letter to all Tennessee Federal Firearms Licensees," dated 16 July. (Found here: http://www.tfaonline.org/downloads/ATFfire...freedomact.pdf) I just have one question. I am not an FFL holder. I never wanted to put myself at the mercy of your unconstitutional, bully-boy agency whose malfeasances, misfeasances, perjuries and deadly misadventures are legendary. I have observed first hand your agency's ability to cow FFL holders into not fighting you in court when you violate your own rules. Your agents often push the line of what constitutes statutory compliance with the threat that they will come back with a raid party if the FFL holder doesn't knuckle under. Having my business, my livelihood, my family's safety and my life at the whim of brutal thuggery such as exemplified by "Waco Jim" Cavanaugh at the time of the Trader's Gun Shop raid here in Birmingham, or Jody Keeku's railroading of David Olofson, never interested me. Indeed, I never thought of becoming a firearms manufacturer before, but now that Tennessee has bravely followed Montana's lead in exercising their Tenth Amendment rights and you have doubled the incentive by issuing your plainly unconstitutional threat which is itself an offensive stench in the nostrils of all liberty-loving Americans, I wonder if you might answer this question: If I move to Tennessee and open up a firearms manufactory (I like the name "Weapon Shop of Isher"), procuring all of my components from within the state and selling only to Tennessee residents as per the Tennessee statute, what are you going to do to ME? I am, after all not one of your tame FFL holders you are used to bullying about. You may threaten them as you like, I suppose, you are certainly used to it. And they have already made the fatal compromise when they bought into your tyrannical system. But what will you do to me? Awaiting your reply with great anticipation. Mike Vanderboegh The alleged leader of a merry band of Three Percenters PO Box 926 Pinson, AL 35126 GeorgeMason1776@aol.com sipseystreetirregulars.blogspot.com PS: Do make your answer in a timely fashion so I can begin lining up investors and hunting a suitable property in Tennessee to open up my new business. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
VanKiller 322 Posted July 21, 2009 Report Share Posted July 21, 2009 A little off topic, But , I've decided to name my next gun shop......A.T.F. yepp.......gonna use their name and sell guns and booze and smokes.........that should just about drive someone crazy....Think anyone would buy a Saiga conversion stamped ATF as the conversion maker. Oh I'm gonna have a ball with this.........................Alcohol Tobacco Firearms...........todays special at ATF, "box of 12 ga slugs, 6 pack of Bud, and a carton of Marlboros".............. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Shandlanos 1,470 Posted July 21, 2009 Report Share Posted July 21, 2009 VanKiller, I floated that idea around a small group of friends, but none of us have had the initiative to make it happen. I'd love to see someone I respect take it to the next level. If anyone has the initiative and balls to pull it off, it's you. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Wotan1105 7 Posted July 21, 2009 Report Share Posted July 21, 2009 Going to make for some interesting court cases Quote Link to post Share on other sites
elvis christ 451 Posted July 21, 2009 Report Share Posted July 21, 2009 A little off topic, But , I've decided to name my next gun shop......A.T.F. yepp.......gonna use their name and sell guns and booze and smokes.........that should just about drive someone crazy....Think anyone would buy a Saiga conversion stamped ATF as the conversion maker. Oh I'm gonna have a ball with this.........................Alcohol Tobacco Firearms...........todays special at ATF, "box of 12 ga slugs, 6 pack of Bud, and a carton of Marlboros".............. I wonder what you would have to do to get a liquor license and a business license to sell firearms in the same building... I have a feeling whoever grants your licenses might be upset with the proposition, but I don't know. Maybe you could do something like a liquor store on one side, and a gun store on the other. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
janusthephoenix 24 Posted July 21, 2009 Report Share Posted July 21, 2009 A little off topic, But , I've decided to name my next gun shop......A.T.F. yepp.......gonna use their name and sell guns and booze and smokes.........that should just about drive someone crazy....Think anyone would buy a Saiga conversion stamped ATF as the conversion maker. Oh I'm gonna have a ball with this.........................Alcohol Tobacco Firearms...........todays special at ATF, "box of 12 ga slugs, 6 pack of Bud, and a carton of Marlboros".............. I don't even smoke, but I'd buy a lighter or something just to get something from all 3 parts of the store. I'd support a store with that kind of balls just on principle. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
IndyArms 10,186 Posted July 21, 2009 Report Share Posted July 21, 2009 I TRULY Want to see what the BATF's reply to THAT letter will be!!! Call them ATF fuckers out on the carpet and let them weasel out of THAT horseshit!! Quote Link to post Share on other sites
elvis christ 451 Posted July 21, 2009 Report Share Posted July 21, 2009 I TRULY Want to see what the BATF's reply to THAT letter will be!!! Call them ATF fuckers out on the carpet and let them weasel out of THAT horseshit!! Have you seen his letter to Eric Holder? It's hilarious. 5 May 2009 Dear Eric, I believe I'm entitled to use your first name, since you have expressed an interest in circumscribing my liberty and seizing my personal property, to wit, three heretofore legal semi-automatic rifles of military utility (mistakenly dubbed "assault rifles"). Anyone who wants to do something so personal and intimate as to commit premeditated theft upon you need not be given any honorifics, don't you agree? I mean, if a street thug announces that he wishes to rob you, there is no need to address him as "Sir" this or "Mister" that. Why should rapacious government thieves who announce their intentions so boldly be treated any differently? If you are offended by the fact that you are unused to being addressed in this manner, I can only say that you are not as offended as I am at the prospect of your administration trying to steal my property and liberty. But, that is not why I write you today. No, I received what I believe to be a credible report this afternoon about someone whom the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives views as a real thorn in their side. The substance of the report has it that you, or someone in your office, has, in reference to this friend of mine, muttered something very much like the following: "What miserable drones and traitors have I nurtured and promoted in my household who let their lord be treated with such shameful contempt by a low-born cleric! . . . Will no one rid me of this troublesome priest?" That, of course, was Henry the Second speaking of the Archbishop of Canterbury, Thomas Becket, in the year of our Lord 1170. Shortly thereafter, four of Henry's knights, Reginald Fitzurse, Hugh de Moreville, William de Tracy, and Richard le Breton entered Canterbury Cathedral, and hacked Becket to death with swords, scattering his brains on the floor. "Let us go," said one, "this fellow will not be getting up again." That political murder had great consequences for Henry, and he regretted it the rest of his long reign. But enough of Henry. Let's talk about the alleged threat. I am sure that this is a base canard, something attributed to you by someone who just wishes to make trouble. However, as it happens, this is not the first time, or even the second, that I have heard such threats attributed to your department since the election. Yet, surely, such an educated man as yourself would not make King Henry's mistake. However, it seems likely that it did come out of your department, so let us say that in some perverted attempt to convey a threat to "this troublesome priest" one of your subordinates actually uttered it. Let us say, for purposes of hypothetical argument, that it is in some sense, true. I know how agencies can spin out of control if not properly guided by upper management. So do you. I'm sure that you saw the television images out of Texas on 28 February and 19 April 1993. I think you would agree with me that neither of those days likely represented the official policy of the Clinton administration. Yet, they happened. Subsequent to that, citizens formed self-defense militias, millions more of your hated "assault weapons" were imported and sold before the ban and we spent the next seven years staring uneasily at one another, waiting for the next government-issue bloody shoe to drop. Oh, yes, and your party lost control of the Congress, with even President Clinton blaming it on the passage of the Brady Bill and the Assault Weapons Ban. The Law of Unintended Consequences sure sucks, doesn't it? But, the other shoe didn't drop. Yet, there's something you should understand about that whole process. As an amateur historian and keen observer of current affairs I can see it without difficulty. You only get one free Waco. If the statistics on the sales of firearms and ammunition tell you anything, you ought to understand that the same dynamic is at work now and yet from your point of view you haven't DONE anything to deserve it. Oh, you've muttered occasional threats to reinstate the Assault Weapons Ban, but no one believes politicians when they speak anyway. So why, you may ask yourself, is this happening? Like I said, Eric, you only get one free Waco. It was your original sin. The botched raid, the massacre, the cover-ups, we've been through them already. You may remember that no one was held to account for that -- not very reassuring to the citizenry. And if, as is apparent, someone in the Department of Justice hasn't learned the lessons of the first Waco, we, the millions of "bitter clingers" out here in fly-over country, have. We have no reason to be trusting of your motives. For we, and you, have been here before. So, let me explicate the obvious: There are no do-overs, not when it comes to your employees killing American citizens for bad reasons. Look around, count the guns, estimate the billions of rounds of small arms ammunition in private hands, and consider that the latest Janet has already declared most of the rest of us, including veterans, "domestic terrorists" anyway. Do you think we have not noticed? Do you think we do not remember the misdeeds of the last administration you were a part of? In addition, recent government misconduct -- bureaucratic, legal and judicial -- in the Wayne Fincher and David Olofson cases (the same kind of chicanery that rightly caused you to overturn the conviction of Alaska Senator Ted Stevens) has convinced many of us that there is no percentage in betting on a fair trial if the ATF sets their sights on us and we are not part of the Mandarin class. If we are no longer under the rule of constitutional law but are merely subject to irreversible bureaucratic diktat and we do not fancy being railroaded in a patently unfair federal trial where expert witnesses are denied access to evidence, then our options when approached by ATF agents are rather limited. It is plain, in the absence of the right of a fair trial, that a target of ATF investigation has little to lose by resorting to the right of an unfair gunfight. This may be an unintended consequence of those cases. It is nonetheless real. Wake up and smell what your administration is shoveling from downwind, where we are forced to stand. And please understand the predicament you've put yourselves in by your present and former bad behavior. There will be no more free Wacos. Please, for all our sakes, counsel your employees, who apparently seek to curry your favor by misquoting you, that replicating 1993 is neither good policy nor is it your intention. We don't need any more itchy trigger fingers in this country. And Eric, not to put too fine a point on it, but you and I both can make an educated guess about what mischief will likely ensue if ANY high-profile Second Amendment activist "has an accident". Best to tell your lads and lasses to stick to those nice safe paper cases (you know, the ones with the 4473s completed with a "Y", rather than "yes") and confine their wet-work fantasies to their off-duty reading. There's still lots of vicious drug gangs, murderous career criminals and real terrorists out there to keep them busy without picking a fight with honest American gunowners who merely want to be left alone. Thank you for your kind attention in this matter. I wish you a nice, full and safe term of office. Really. Mike Vanderboegh PO Box 926 Pinson, AL 35126 GeorgeMason1776@aol.com sipseystreetirregulars.blogspot.com Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Azrial 1,091 Posted July 21, 2009 Report Share Posted July 21, 2009 The Governors of these states needs to direct the Sheriff's of the Counties and the State Police to enforce their State's law. The BATF will then need to handle this through the courts if they don't truly want to play hardball. Some piss-ant federal regulatory agency should have no right to contravene state law. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
KrisFox 69 Posted July 21, 2009 Report Share Posted July 21, 2009 Montana has a phase 2 plan. Take the ATF to court. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Donkismash 81 Posted July 21, 2009 Report Share Posted July 21, 2009 (edited) Off topic: Wotan1105....kick ass avatar....I was fucking ecstatic when :Hendo: knocked out that trash talking amateur....I think he may take Silva in there second fight... Edited July 21, 2009 by Donkismash Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Reverendfranz 160 Posted July 21, 2009 Report Share Posted July 21, 2009 Quote Link to post Share on other sites
elvis christ 451 Posted July 22, 2009 Report Share Posted July 22, 2009 /\ Good post. I've got to read it at work tomorrow, when I haven't been drinking, and I'll probably have some comments. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
cscharlie 107 Posted July 22, 2009 Report Share Posted July 22, 2009 First off I want to say, "Go Montana Go!". I was hoping that a bunch of states would band together with Montana and soon... Quote Link to post Share on other sites
RangerM9 1 Posted July 23, 2009 Report Share Posted July 23, 2009 I think the states will be hard pressed to beat this one. In general, a state can write laws more restrictive than the fed, but seldom can they reduce the restrictions of a federal regulation. Consider that if you passed a national law that said no abortions of any kind, do you think the states should have the power to ignore that federal law and do what they want? careful what you wish for..... Quote Link to post Share on other sites
crackback 135 Posted July 23, 2009 Report Share Posted July 23, 2009 I think the states will be hard pressed to beat this one. In general, a state can write laws more restrictive than the fed, but seldom can they reduce the restrictions of a federal regulation. Consider that if you passed a national law that said no abortions of any kind, do you think the states should have the power to ignore that federal law and do what they want? careful what you wish for..... Not really whats at issue here. This is over the abuse of the Commerce Clause to enhance Federal control where it ought not have the authority to do so, hence ,Montana and Tennessee manufactured arms shall not leave their respective states or then become subject to applicable federal laws Quote Link to post Share on other sites
SOPMOD 254 Posted July 23, 2009 Report Share Posted July 23, 2009 (edited) If Montanans or Tennesseans make their own guns and are not involved in "Commerce" how can that be affected by our Crooked Federales? A guy who presses an AK flat and then builds an unregistered SBR should be fully protected by state law shouldn't he? Edited July 23, 2009 by SOPMOD Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Reverendfranz 160 Posted July 23, 2009 Report Share Posted July 23, 2009 since 1797, Is, and Should Be, have often found themselves at odds, both in this country, and its individual states. I hope that the individual states will do the right thing, but it remains to be seen, what, exactly, their commitment may be, and in our delicate balance of power, if the states fail, the responsibility falls solely upon the source of all legitimate political power, the people, who operate neither with the ballance, nor legal delicacy of the states. Godspeed. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.