The administration's theory is that the people who benefit from regulation should pay for it. Except that it is the general public who benefits from the restrictions imposed by the feds.
"The Congress hereby declares that the purpose of this title is to protect interstate and foreign commerce against interference and interruption by reducing the hazard to persons and property arising from misuse and unsafe or insecure storage of explosive materials."
I didn't know that Dana Carvey was the head of the ATF. Or is it Dana Carvey doing John McLaughlin? Good... I hope congress cuts the ATF's funds even more. They are one of the most worthless entities in the federal government. They can't even perform a simple arrest correctly. But they can do a good job burning down a compound with many children inside! Well, I guess I shouldn't give them all the credit as they had ample help from the FBI...
Daniel
David Schultz wrote:
Yea, except first of all, ATF can not arrest anyone. They are not a "justice" agency therefore ATF have no authority to detain or arrest anyone. The only Federal Agency that can do that is the US Marshall or the FBI.
notice that ATF is under the department of treasury (like the IRS) but that was before the homeland security act... I dont know what they are after that...
ATF is now a part of the Department of Justice. Which should have been obvious from the article.
So what is INS under now with the new homeland security law? Department of Defense? whats next, classify illegal aliens as "enemy combatant" and hold them in cuba forever?
"Land of the free" my ass!
Ever hear Dubyah talk about the "new world order?" This is it. I can't wait until somone in our government figures out that they've done some dumb things lately and they need to undo them.
Uncle Billy and his cohorts started that NEW WORLD ORDER crap and that is why you should be very afraid now. The U.N. (which the USA pays for most of it) is trying to ban the sales and transfer of firearms " to curb terrorism". This is just another ploy by the gun grabbers to first take away our 2nd Amendment rights and then all our other rights. So we can all be good little conforming subjects,
yea and most "developed" countries like Taiwan and many other "free" countries dont allow firearms and have very severe penalty for posessing one.
So if the USA is so freaking bad why are people ready to risk life and limb to get here any way possible?
Hugh An American Hawk
That's rich. Only the government would consider regulations a "benefit" to those being regulated.=20
Immigration and Naturalization Service (INS) officially became the Bureau of Citizenship and Immigration Services (BCIS), operating under the Department of Homeland Security.
Yeah... the land where one is free to own firearms - unlike in Taiwan. And then there's that whole mainland (Communist) China/Taiwan deal... where if not for the protection of the USA, you'd just be another commie gook with NO freedoms.
DSC
The provision has been struck from the bill. The Senate of course has plenty of opportunity for shenanigans after they get it.
From the congressional record:
Mr. MOLLOHAN. Mr. Chairman, this is a provision that the chairman and I understand the dilemma which he is in.
So, by striking it, I hope that what results is that there is a hole in BATF's budget at the end of the year, and making the point that this is probably not a good idea for the administration to do if they, in fact, want all of the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearm programs to be funded into the future.
So I hope after this is struck that this hole remains and that the point is made in a telling way.
| Please resubmit your search | | Search results are only retained for a limited amount of time.Your search | results have either been deleted, or the file has been updated with new | information.
what were your query terms?
glen
I didn't use any as I browsed the daily digest. It starts on page 4652. I didn't notice the "temp" in the URL and that is probably why it failed.
You could search the house record on 27 June 2007 for Mr. Mollohan with keywords of "point of order". That just worked for me.
Did I miss a year somewhere or is congress really ahead of the times now? 2007? naw....has to be a typo. Congress is still stuck in the
80's
The Senate report on the appropriations bill is now available:
The relevant section is basically a slap on the wrist of the administration:
"Proposed Fees to Fund Existing Law Enforcement Operations- The Committee is disappointed by the Department's proposal of a $120,000,000 fee on the explosives industry and a permit fee on users to fund existing base operations and programs of the ATF. The Committee understands that if this fee were enacted today, it would take 2 years to put the regulatory structure in place before any funds could be collected. The Committee notes it is irresponsible to budget for ongoing fiscal year 2007 law enforcement operations with funds that do not exist. These types of financing schemes create significant problems for the Committee and could ultimately lead to a disruption to the Department's law enforcement programs."
Since the offending language was struck by the House before the bill was reported to the Senate, the committee must have been particularly put out in order to insert this comment in the report. Alas, they aren't offended by the fee, just that the ATF is including the money in the budget long before they could expect to collect any of it.
PolyTech Forum website is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.