Well I can't argue with that, it certainly makes sense to use one's best argument in a situation like this one where almost anything can be alleged from either side without proof that it's true. All that I have on which to to base my suspicions in this instance is my unpleasant experience in the past with the old ATF (now BAFTE) personnel during the Clinton Administration era. Not long after Clinton took office he apparently ordered the agency to put as many licensed firearms dealers out of business as possible by whatever means were necessary, whether or not those means were strictly in accord with the firearms laws in effect at that time.
My small, part time business as it was organized at the time came under the authority of the ATF. After being summoned to the district office for no apparent reason except to intimidate me and being generally harassed and threatened by field agents, the situation came to a head and I was given an off the record warning that unless I surrendered my FFL and closed up shop I would be prosecuted for illegal firearms transactions that we both knew never took place. At that point I realized that even though I had not broken any federal law I couldn't successfully fight a corrupt government agency and it's bottomless pit of funds, so I threw in the towel and called it quits.
That was no great loss since my profit margin was thin to say the least, and I was motivated to find a more profitable and less closely controlled line of business. But the overall experience left me with a bad taste in my mouth whenever I am reminded of what I believe is, or at least was, a rogue agency willing to operate outside, or on the very thinnest edge, of the law if necessary to carry out what may or may not be an otherwise legitimate mission.
“a rogue agency willing to operate outside, or on the very thinnest edge, of the law if necessary to carry out what may or may not be an otherwise legitimate mission.”
That sounds like an accurate description of Eric Holder’s DOJ too. Very scary.