# Reid Admits No Support For "Assault Weapons" Ban **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [March 19, 2013, 10:41pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/reid-admits-no-support-for-assault-weapons-ban/653402 "2013-03-19T22:41:00Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 11
**Author:** ![John\_Mace](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/john_mace/32/185_2.png) [@John\_Mace](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_Mace)\ **Post date:** [March 22, 2013, 1:38am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/reid-admits-no-support-for-assault-weapons-ban/653402/201 "2013-03-22T01:38:21Z")
> [@PhillyGuy](#): > > Then why aren’t people metaphorically (or actually) up in arms over the ban on fully automatic weapons? > > It’s because the limits you already live under, you are used it. If the US had waited until a significant portion of the population owned automatic weapons, they would have been up in arms over banning that. And if we didn’t have universal car registration and driver licensing requirements, people would indeed by up in arms over a proposal to require it. I don’t accept your hypothetical as a statement of fact. Maybe the would and maybe they wouldn’t. Maybe they would be “up in arms” about it for financial, not constitutional reasons. > [@](#): > > As for the Constitution, what about the ninth amendment: > > _The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people._ > > Obviously the right to drive was, up until the several states started butting its nose in, reserved to the people. So driver’s licensing is a violation of the Constitution. The primary reason this last sentence will be seen as absurd is that everyone is used to the automotive regulations. Back up. Since when did the federal government require licenses to drive? Let us not forget the 10the amendment, which delegates powers to the states. Besides, you don’t need a license to own a car or to drive it on your own property. The license and registration is to operate it on public roads. So, the analogy fails even further as we analyze it. ---
**Author:** ![PhillyGuy](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/ed655f/32.png) [@PhillyGuy](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/PhillyGuy)\ **Post date:** [March 22, 2013, 1:38am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/reid-admits-no-support-for-assault-weapons-ban/653402/202 "2013-03-22T01:38:38Z")
> [@Fear\_Itself](#): > > Really? And requiring those forms to be filled out doesn’t violate the 2nd Amendment? \ And it’s a lot more than filling out forms: > **[GunCite - Gun Control: Machine Guns](https://guncite.com/gun_control_gcfullau.html)** > > Machine gun laws and machine gun crime > [@](#): > > To become a registered owner, a complete FBI background investigation is conducted, checking for any criminal history or tendencies toward violence, and . . . a sworn affidavit that transfer of the NFA firearm is of “reasonable necessity,” and that sale to and possession of the weapon by the applicant “would be consistent with public safety.” The application form also requires the signature of a chief law enforcement officer with jurisdiction in the applicant’s residence. > > Since the Firearms Owners’ Protection Act of May 19, 1986, ownership of newly manufactured machine guns has been prohibited to civilians. Something tells me that the Philadelphia Chief of Police doesn’t actually agree to sign a whole lot of forms letting someone, of necessity(!), have a near antique weapon that nonetheless can out-gun his officers. In practice, fully automatic weapons are not legal in the US. Our gun laws are dreadfully weak, but not that bad. ---
**Author:** ![John\_Mace](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/john_mace/32/185_2.png) [@John\_Mace](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_Mace)\ **Post date:** [March 22, 2013, 2:40am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/reid-admits-no-support-for-assault-weapons-ban/653402/203 "2013-03-22T02:40:01Z")
Lest this thread simply turns into ye another gun control debate, I’d like to ask **Bricker** if he still thinks his OP is valid. After all the discussion we’ve had related to the OP, is there anything you would like to change or take back? ---
**Author:** ![elucidator](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/8edcca/32.png) [@elucidator](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/elucidator)\ **Post date:** [March 22, 2013, 3:48am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/reid-admits-no-support-for-assault-weapons-ban/653402/204 "2013-03-22T03:48:33Z")
Latest news says Reid will proceed with an AWB vote after all. Whether this means he thinks it may pass or no, punditti are divided. Could simply be he smells an advantage in the next set of elections and wants to get everybody on the record. ---
**Author:** ![Damuri\_Ajashi](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/898d66/32.png) [@Damuri\_Ajashi](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Damuri_Ajashi)\ **Post date:** [March 22, 2013, 4:38am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/reid-admits-no-support-for-assault-weapons-ban/653402/205 "2013-03-22T04:38:36Z")
> [@elucidator](#): > > And if you don’t fill out those forms? Then you have broken the law, yes? Now, if you want to say that registering guns and filling out the forms and identifying yourself, all that good stuff, does not “abridge” your rights, I’m fine with that. And maybe you are fine with that as well. I am fine with it as long as my state is fine with it. I never understood the second amendment to convey a personal right until Heller and I think Heller only conveys a right to effective self defense. If one day light sabers are necessary for effective self defense, then that is what I think Heller stands for. Right now I think my personal right to effective self defense would not be violated as long as I can have semi-automatic shotguns and semi-automatic pistols and some kind of rifle effective for smaller frame people who can’t comfortably manage a 12 or 20 gauge shotgun. I had previously understood the second amendment, read together with other parts of the constitution to give both the state and the federal government the right to give access to their citizens to “arms” So if the federal government wanted to permit AR-15s but not M-16s and New York forbade both while Virginia wanted both then in New York you could have AR-15s while in Virginia you could have both. I don’t know of any states that really want to make machine guns widely available in their states. I don’t think any state is going to challenge the documenting and background check requirements, they might want to challenge the ban on new sales. > [@](#): > > And therefore only a member of such a militia has such protections. (A) SCOTUS would like a word with you; (B) militia meant every able bodied white male at the time. With the passage of time and the evolution of the constitution it would probably mean every able bodied citizen. > [@Fear\_Itself](#): > > Really? And requiring those forms to be filled out doesn’t violate the 2nd Amendment? Nope. Hell SCOTUS even said that licensing and registration are OK. > [@PhillyGuy](#): > > And it’s a lot more than filling out forms: There is a bit of a wait, but there is a wait for my CCW too. The state is allowed to check my background to protects its legitimate state interest. > [@](#): > > Something tells me that the Philadelphia Chief of Police doesn’t actually agree to sign a whole lot of forms letting someone, of necessity(!), have a near antique weapon that nonetheless can out-gun his officers. In practice, fully automatic weapons are not legal in the US. Our gun laws are dreadfully weak, but not that bad. I know people who collect them in places like Long Island and Arlington, VA. > [@elucidator](#): > > Latest news says Reid will proceed with an AWB vote after all. Whether this means he thinks it may pass or no, punditti are divided. Could simply be he smells an advantage in the next set of elections and wants to get everybody on the record. My understanding is that he is going to proceed with a universal background check as passed by the judiciary committee unless there is a compromise. The compromise is likely to limit universal background checks to gun shows and internet sales. He will allow people to propose amendments, including one by Feinstein that will go down in flames. ---
**Author:** ![Debaser](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/3da27b/32.png) [@Debaser](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Debaser)\ **Post date:** [March 22, 2013, 5:14pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/reid-admits-no-support-for-assault-weapons-ban/653402/206 "2013-03-22T17:14:08Z")
> [@Damuri\_Ajashi](#): > > You never got one as a gift or gave one as a gift? No, unfortunately. My understanding is that I could decide today to give one of my guns to someone as a gift and that would be legal. But if I decided to buy a gun today as a gift to someone I would be guilty of straw purchasing and would be good for 5 years in federal prison. > [@](#): > > And funding, lets not forget the funding. True. However, I’d argue that the BATF has plenty of funding and it’s the priorities and lack of leadership that are the problem. The agents are all making six figure salaries, and the emails exposed as part of fast and furious show that the agents and their management are all incompetent clowns. You could fire them all and hire people at half the salary and get twice as much done if you focused them on actually enforcing the laws that exist. ---
**Author:** ![HurricaneDitka](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/96bed5/32.png) [@HurricaneDitka](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/HurricaneDitka)\ **Post date:** [March 22, 2013, 5:14pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/reid-admits-no-support-for-assault-weapons-ban/653402/207 "2013-03-22T17:14:56Z")
> [@elucidator](#): > > But unless we take those words in the 2nd as rock-solid Gospel…Thou Shalt Not!..then the mere fact that guns are mentioned does not afford them any more special status than a car. Its says we won’t infringe, but we do, and that’s that. You should just expect that any law which imposes additional burdens on an enumerated right is going to get more criticism and opposition than a law which burdens or restricts a “9th Amendment right.” For example, if we were discussing some restrictions on free speech, I’d expect the opponents of such restrictions would say “but the First Amendment …”. Yes, it’s true we’ve already got some restrictions in place, but that hasn’t nullified the First Amendment, and it’s probably unrealistic to expect free-speech advocates to not bring up the 1st Amendment when someone tries to impose additional restrictions on free speech. And saying “that’s that” isn’t going to convince them otherwise. ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [March 22, 2013, 5:38pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/reid-admits-no-support-for-assault-weapons-ban/653402/208 "2013-03-22T17:38:01Z")
> [@John\_Mace](#): > > Lest this thread simply turns into ye another gun control debate, I’d like to ask **Bricker** if he still thinks his OP is valid. After all the discussion we’ve had related to the OP, is there anything you would like to change or take back? If I had it to do over, I’d change the title to reflect more clearly the lack of SUFFICIENT support, not total support. The incredible bad faith shown by those who insist that a meme as obvious as this requires intense documentation is something i expect, and regard as the cost of doing business here. ---
**Author:** ![Cyros](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/a698b9/32.png) [@Cyros](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Cyros)\ **Post date:** [March 22, 2013, 5:58pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/reid-admits-no-support-for-assault-weapons-ban/653402/209 "2013-03-22T17:58:47Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > The incredible bad faith shown by those who insist that a meme as obvious as this requires intense documentation is something i expect, and regard as the cost of doing business here. I’d be interested in a few links coming from actual legislators expressing that meme. I will fully grant you that individuals that identify with the left have over the last few years have expressed that you would be ‘safe’ voting for democrats as there is not enough general support for more restrictive gun legislation but I think that is very different from the thesis you proposed in your OP. ---
**Author:** ![Human\_Action](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/ac91a4/32.png) [@Human\_Action](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Human_Action)\ **Post date:** [March 22, 2013, 6:20pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/reid-admits-no-support-for-assault-weapons-ban/653402/210 "2013-03-22T18:20:38Z")
> [@HurricaneDitka](#): > > You should just expect that any law which imposes additional burdens on an enumerated right is going to get more criticism and opposition than a law which burdens or restricts a “9th Amendment right.” Exactly, it’s called [strict scrutiny.](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strict_scrutiny) > [@](#): > > Strict scrutiny is the most stringent standard of judicial review used by United States courts. It is part of the hierarchy of standards that courts use to weigh the government’s interest against a constitutional right or principle. > > … > > U.S. courts \*\*apply the strict scrutiny standard in two contexts, when a fundamental constitutional right is infringed, particularly those found in the Bill of Rights \*\*and those the court has deemed a fundamental right protected by the “liberty” or “due process” clause of the 14th Amendment, or when a government action applies to a “suspect classification” such as race or, sometimes, national origin. Bolding mine. > [@Cyros](#): > > I will fully grant you that individuals that identify with the left have over the last few years have expressed that you would be ‘safe’ voting for democrats as there is not enough general support for more restrictive gun legislation but I think that is very different from the thesis you proposed in your OP. That’s my take as well; the “safety” from gun laws being pursued by Democrats was a result of the lack of support for them, NOT because Democrats had changed their views on guns. Anyone who told you Democrats would never again try to restrict gun ownership further was wildly mistaken. ---
**Author:** ![John\_Mace](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/john_mace/32/185_2.png) [@John\_Mace](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_Mace)\ **Post date:** [March 22, 2013, 6:26pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/reid-admits-no-support-for-assault-weapons-ban/653402/211 "2013-03-22T18:26:32Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > The incredible bad faith shown by those who insist that a meme as obvious as this requires intense documentation is something i expect, and regard as the cost of doing business here. Not really sure what you’re getting at here. You claim, on the one hand, that there is some “meme” that is “obvious”, and so it should be trivial to substantiate it in some way, whether “intense” or not. Because when provided with evidence that the meme doesn’t even reflect reality, you hand-waved that evidence away. Am I acting in “bad faith” when I tell you that I’m not aware of this meme you claim is obvious and that I need to see some evidence of its existence? ---
**Author:** ![RTFirefly](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/c77e96/32.png) [@RTFirefly](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/RTFirefly)\ **Post date:** [March 22, 2013, 10:15pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/reid-admits-no-support-for-assault-weapons-ban/653402/212 "2013-03-22T22:15:11Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > The incredible bad faith shown by those who insist that a meme as obvious as this requires intense documentation is something i expect, and regard as the cost of doing business here. Oh, hell. Since I can’t say what this nonsense deserves in GD, [welcome to the Pit](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=685984). ---
**Author:** ![Bryan\_Ekers](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/bryan_ekers/32/183_2.png) [@Bryan\_Ekers](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bryan_Ekers)\ **Post date:** [March 23, 2013, 4:24am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/reid-admits-no-support-for-assault-weapons-ban/653402/213 "2013-03-23T04:24:22Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > If I had it to do over, I’d change the title to reflect more clearly the lack of SUFFICIENT support, not total support. Well, having read the thread, I can honesty say that if this revision had been present in the OP, my reaction would be “Yeah, so?” As it stands my reaction is only\* mostly\* “Yeah, so?” ---
**Author:** ![Airman\_Doors\_USAF](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/e36b37/32.png) [@Airman\_Doors\_USAF](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Airman_Doors_USAF)\ **Post date:** [March 23, 2013, 5:19pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/reid-admits-no-support-for-assault-weapons-ban/653402/214 "2013-03-23T17:19:54Z")
> [@PhillyGuy](#): > > Something tells me that the Philadelphia Chief of Police doesn’t actually agree to sign a whole lot of forms letting someone, of necessity(!), have a near antique weapon that nonetheless can out-gun his officers. In practice, fully automatic weapons are not legal in the US. Our gun laws are dreadfully weak, but not that bad. Even if he doesn’t sign, it can still go through if you form an NFA Trust, though that means the weapon does not belong to you, it belongs to the trust. Interestingly, that also means that every member of the trust can have possession of the weapon instead of just the registered owner. In other words, the Chief of Police would be better off not being a tool and just signing the Form 4. Alas, politics gets in the way again, and the Law of Unintended Consequences once more rears its head. ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [March 23, 2013, 5:25pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/reid-admits-no-support-for-assault-weapons-ban/653402/215 "2013-03-23T17:25:40Z")
> [@John\_Mace](#): > > Not really sure what you’re getting at here. You claim, on the one hand, that there is some “meme” that is “obvious”, and so it should be trivial to substantiate it in some way, whether “intense” or not. Because when provided with evidence that the meme doesn’t even reflect reality, you hand-waved that evidence away. > > Am I acting in “bad faith” when I tell you that I’m not aware of this meme you claim is obvious and that I need to see some evidence of its existence? It’s an incredible claim. ---
**Author:** ![John\_Mace](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/john_mace/32/185_2.png) [@John\_Mace](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_Mace)\ **Post date:** [March 23, 2013, 5:55pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/reid-admits-no-support-for-assault-weapons-ban/653402/216 "2013-03-23T17:55:08Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > It’s an incredible claim. What is an incredible claim? ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [March 23, 2013, 6:03pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/reid-admits-no-support-for-assault-weapons-ban/653402/217 "2013-03-23T18:03:26Z")
> [@John\_Mace](#): > > What is an incredible claim? That in the past fifteen years, you saw absolutely no sign, here or elsewhere, that Democrats and their pundits/proxies were signalling concern about guns was not a valid reason to vote against Democrats, since they were’t going to push gun control. ---
**Author:** ![Damuri\_Ajashi](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/898d66/32.png) [@Damuri\_Ajashi](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Damuri_Ajashi)\ **Post date:** [March 23, 2013, 6:32pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/reid-admits-no-support-for-assault-weapons-ban/653402/218 "2013-03-23T18:32:34Z")
> [@Debaser](#): > > No, unfortunately. My understanding is that I could decide today to give one of my guns to someone as a gift and that would be legal. But if I decided to buy a gun today as a gift to someone I would be guilty of straw purchasing and would be good for 5 years in federal prison. I don’t know how it works exactly but I have bought guns and said “its for my wife” to explain the purse holster I was buying for the gun. My friend recently bought his son a cricket and you couldn’t possibly think it was for him. > [@](#): > > True. However, I’d argue that the BATF has plenty of funding and it’s the priorities and lack of leadership that are the problem. The agents are all making six figure salaries, and the emails exposed as part of fast and furious show that the agents and their management are all incompetent clowns. You could fire them all and hire people at half the salary and get twice as much done if you focused them on actually enforcing the laws that exist. cite for BATF agents being incompetent clowns and all making 6 figure salaries. I don’t think they have anywhere near enough funding. IIRC BATF standards are as tough as if not tougher than FBI. > [@Bricker](#): > > That in the past fifteen years, you saw absolutely no sign, here or elsewhere, that Democrats and their pundits/proxies were signalling concern about guns was not a valid reason to vote against Democrats, since they were’t going to push gun control. I only saw this with respect to voting for Obama. Particularly in response to the Wayne La Pierre claims that Obama was planning on restricting gun rights and when he didn’t do it in his first term, Wayne started saying that Obama was going to do it during his second term. Turns out Wayne was right but in a “every clock is right twice a day” sort of way. ---
**Author:** ![John\_Mace](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/john_mace/32/185_2.png) [@John\_Mace](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_Mace)\ **Post date:** [March 23, 2013, 6:34pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/reid-admits-no-support-for-assault-weapons-ban/653402/219 "2013-03-23T18:34:12Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > That in the past fifteen years, you saw absolutely no sign, here or elsewhere, that Democrats and their pundits/proxies were signalling concern about guns was not a valid reason to vote against Democrats, since they were’t going to push gun control. I think Democrats are happiest when gun control is not talked about at all. But that’s entirely different from making affirmative statements that they would not seek additional gun control measures, however minor or however downplayed those measures might be. What I think they did try to impress on people is that they weren’t looking to overturn the 2nd amendment or “take everyone’s guns away”, which does seem to be a mistaken meme among a large segment of the right-wing electorate. Here’s John Kerry in 2004, during his presidential run, saying he wanted to extend the assault weapon ban, which is the key item in your OP: > [@](#): > > [Federal ban on assault weapons expires](http://usatoday30.usatoday.com/news/washington/2004-09-12-weapons-ban_x.htm) > > John Kerry, the Democratic presidential nominee, said President Bush had failed tests of character and leadership. But the National Rifle Association lauded the demise of what it called a “misguided law, which had no effect on the actions of criminals, but penalized law-abiding citizens.” > > Bush said in the 2000 campaign that he would sign an extension of the 10-year ban on the semiautomatic weapons. However, he did not press Congress to send him such a bill, and its Republican leaders never did. > > “Why didn’t you ask, Mr. President?” Kerry asked, surrounded by police officers and gun violence victims at a community center here. “Why didn’t you fight for it?” > > The answer, Kerry said, is that Bush caved to the NRA. “It is a test of character,” he said. “In a secret deal, he chose his powerful friends in the gun lobby over the police officers and families that he promised to protect.” He said Bush has made it easier for terrorists to do their jobs and harder for police to do theirs. Even though Bush said he’d sign a bill if it came to him, Kerry is making a concerted effort to position himself to the left of Bush on the issue. He would actively work to extend the ban that got you started on this thread. So, if you want to claim that Democrats make an effort to counter the ridiculous claims made about them by the right, then sure. They often talk about supporting the 2nd amendment. They like photo ops of them shooting guns. But they wouldn’t have to do that if they weren’t the target of the powerful gun lobby. The same lobby that [rated Kerry “F”](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Kerry_presidential_campaign,_2004#Gun_control) on gun issues. Not “B-” or “C”, but “F”. So, if you want to wage a war on misleading memes, you’ll find better hunting on the right on this issue. It’s a target rich environment over there. ---
**Author:** ![Debaser](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/3da27b/32.png) [@Debaser](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Debaser)\ **Post date:** [March 25, 2013, 5:19pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/reid-admits-no-support-for-assault-weapons-ban/653402/220 "2013-03-25T17:19:49Z")
> [@Damuri\_Ajashi](#): > > cite for BATF agents being incompetent clowns and all making 6 figure salaries. I don’t think they have anywhere near enough funding. IIRC BATF standards are as tough as if not tougher than FBI. We did it a while back in [this thread](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=656680&highlight=fast+furious+emails). [This article](http://features.blogs.fortune.cnn.com/2012/06/27/fast-and-furious-truth/) outlines a lot of the unprofessional behavior… > [@](#): > > Agents were getting pulled from other field offices to assist, and on March 11, one wrote to ask Voth, “You’re not going to give the out-of-towners the crappy shifts, are you?” Voth responded, “I am attempting to split the weekends so everyone has to work one of the two days that way no one gets screwed too hard and everybody gets screwed a little bit.” > The next day, March 12, Voth sent out the wire schedule at 5:15 p.m. but got such a blizzard of complaints about the shifts that, two hours later, he sent another e-mail to the group. It read in part: “[T]here may be a schism developing amongst the group. This is the time we all need to pull together not drift apart. We are all entitled to our respective (albeit different) opinions however we all need to get along and realize we have a mission to accomplish. I am thrilled and proud that our Group is the first ATF Southwest Border Group in the country to be going up on [a] wire…I will be damned if this case is going to suffer due to petty arguing, rumors or other adolescent behavior…I don’t know what all the issues are but we are all adults, we are all professionals, and we have an exciting opportunity to use the biggest tool in our law enforcement tool box. If you don’t think this is fun you’re in the wrong line of work—period! This is the pinnacle of domestic U.S. law-enforcement techniques. After this the tool box is empty. Maybe the Maricopa County Jail is hiring detention officers and you can get paid $30,000 (Instead of $100,000) to serve lunch to inmates all day.” > [@](#): > > The atmosphere inside Voth’s group had become toxic. The subjects of dispute were often trivial. For example, when Voth asked Casa to turn off his computer’s Godzilla sound effect, which roared each time he got an e-mail, Casa replied, “I have done some limited research and have found no ATF order or internal division memo addressing this issue.” > [@](#): > > On June 1, Dodson used $2,500 in ATF funds to purchase six AK Draco pistols from local gun dealers, and gave these to Fernandez, who reimbursed him and gave him $700 for his efforts. Two days later, according to case records, Dodson—who would later testify that in his previous experience, “if even one [gun] got away from us, nobody went home until we found it”—left on a scheduled vacation without interdicting the guns. That day, Voth wrote to remind him that money collected as evidence needed to be vouchered within five days. Dodson e-mailed back, his sarcasm fully restored: “Do the orders define a ‘day’? Is it; a calendar day? A business day or work day….? An Earth day (because a day on Venus takes 243 Earth days which would mean that I have plenty of time)?” Overpaid, unprofessional incompetent people seem to be at every level of the BATF. Lastly, this? > [@Damuri\_Ajashi](#): > > IIRC BATF standards are as tough as if not tougher than FBI. [Doesn’t impress me.](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Whitey_Bulger#FBI_informant) [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/reid-admits-no-support-for-assault-weapons-ban/653402.md?page=10) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/reid-admits-no-support-for-assault-weapons-ban/653402.md?page=12)