Skip to comments.Fast and Furious Scandal Gives Rise to Gun Regulation Debate
Posted on 12/15/2011 11:21:44 AM PST by jazusamo
As a candidate, Barack Obama once endorsed a ban on handguns and favored restrictions on the purchase and possession of firearms. So when gun owners heard of Operation Fast and Furious, many feared the worst.
Now, newly revealed emails suggest that if the gun-running operation didn't start out with that intent, as administration officials insist, the program certainly led to discussions on new gun regulations.
"There's a lot of talk that President Obama stated that he is working for gun control with alternative methods," said Arizona gun dealer Jeff Serdy. "I hope this isn't one of them."
Serdy and others suspect the Obama administration used the gun-running operation to support regulations Congress would not even consider, namely, a rule requiring gun stores in the Southwest to report anyone who tries to buy multiple "long guns," or rifles, in a one-week period.
"If the American people learn that the motivations for all of this was to make a case to deprive them of their Second Amendment rights or to make a case to further the (Justice) department's ability to further regulate gun rights within the United States, that would make them very angry," said Arizona Republican Rep. Trent Franks.
Holder insists that's not accurate.
"Clearly, an attempt to use Fast and Furious as a way to bolster the request for that long-gun regulation would have been foolhardy," he told the House Judiciary Committee last week.
There is no evidence the administration initially considered using the operation to justify stronger gun laws. But as the investigation dragged on, and Washington saw more and more weapons from U.S. gun stores show up at Mexican crime scenes, at least some officials saw a political argument developing to support their legislative agenda.
(Excerpt) Read more at foxnews.com ...
Fast and Furious was created deliberately to create a situation to justify gun control. Brian Terry died because of that misguided belief.
F&F violated the Constitution and was a serious effort to violate Americans Civil Rights. Because of that, the Government MUST relinquish a severe degree of control over firearms. We are not giving them a choice. Congress must repeal significant gun control laws on the books. Nothing less will be acceptable. The Government attempted to subvert the Rights of the American People and must be punished for doing so.
Repeals must include but not be limited to:
1. The NFA.
2. The Sporting Purpose Clause of the 1968 GCA.
3. The Hughes Amendment to FOPA 1986.
4. Any and all multiple purchase reporting requirements.
AND, we demand that all Government and LE exemptions to Firearms laws and regulations be removed and outlawed for any future legislation.
The Government messed up bad. They must pay for it.
>we demand that all Government and LE exemptions to Firearms laws and regulations be removed and outlawed for any future legislation.
That is a VERY good idea; but we’ll have to pry the exemptions from their cold dead hands.
Oh, I don’t think that will be necessary. We’ll get what we want.
>Oh, I dont think that will be necessary. Well get what we want.
I really don’t think so; and here’s why: the ‘exemptions’ are entirely ingrained into the culture not only of “law enforcement” but general government as well.
An example; consider security guards in court-houses. Armed.
The general citizen, unarmed; not only that, but an attempt to be armed in said courthouse will bring down harsh punishment.
The USSC has, however repeatedly ruled that the police have no affirmative obligation to ensure a particular citizen’s safety. This means that if “some crazy nutjob” busts into a courthouse you’re obligated to be in (say jury-duty), the police have no obligation to ensure your safety. Just like Columbine and other shootings in “gun free zones” the police generally stay back until the perp has offed himself (under the guise of “officer safety”) and even their militarized SWAT (under the guise of “officer safety”) will hold back... apparently “officer safety” justifies ANY and ALL disarming of citizens. [slight sarcasm]
But back to the courthouse example, how will the judge, the courthouse employees, and even the general citizens react to nullifying the exemption of “law enforcement”? I am fairly sure that they’ll all raise hell about nobody being able to protect them at all.
Ah, no, I mean exemptions for owning and purchasing firearms. Carry is a whole different matter. Basically, we cannot allow the Government to purchase and possess what the citizens are banned from owning and purchasing. Any bans that apply to the citizenry must apply to the Government and all LE as well.
>Ah, no, I mean exemptions for owning and purchasing firearms. Carry is a whole different matter.
Ah, I see.
I took you to mean all exceptions.
I would be perfectly a-ok with both the owning/purchasing & carry exceptions being stripped from the police.
>Basically, we cannot allow the Government to purchase and possess what the citizens are banned from owning and purchasing. Any bans that apply to the citizenry must apply to the Government and all LE as well.
Utter agreement here.
In one email, Burke called the gun stores 'evil' and ATF brass in Washington also cooperated for a story in The Washington Post in December 2009 suggesting border-state gun stores were responsible for Mexico's cartel violence.
Internally, ATF officials admit cooperating gun stores like Lone Wolf in Phoenix -- singled out in the Post story -- actually helped the operation, dutifully faxing the names, addresses and serial numbers of the guns that the straws bought, often the same day. Lone Wolf also allowed the ATF to install cameras inside the store, giving ATF officials coast to coast real-time information about purchases and purchasers.
Holder's critics say he is setting their argument for them. According to the facts in the case, 93 multiple handgun purchases were made by Fast and Furious suspects, averaging nearly five handguns per purchase. These were already required to be reported under existing regulations.
So BATFE agents were already being notified, and they wanted the drug cartels to have another thousand or so long guns! And this was so idiotically stupid that Brian Terry had to be murdered before it was stopped? Lanny Breuer admitted to knowing about it, and Breuer did nothing to stop it. I'm not a lawyer, but why can't Arizona bring Breuer up on charges of negligent homicide or some sort of accessory? Breuer needs to be made to talk. He needs to be placed in protective custody ASAP.