Warning

 

Close

Confirm Action

Are you sure you wish to do this?

Confirm Cancel
Member Login
Site Notices
9/22/2017 12:11:25 AM
Posted: 4/7/2006 6:59:59 AM EDT
in one of my public policy courses(ethics and accountibility) we are talking about how ethical policy makers can have a tramendous impact on an organization and or the community. this got me to think about how screwed up the ATF is.

what argument could a policy maker make to the leadership of the BATFE to show that the organization is on the not on the correct track. how would could that policy maker sell that argument to the leadership to show that that change is the corect/ ethical way to proceed.

basically what argument could allow the ATF to change from the inside to be a better and more ethical organization


Link Posted: 4/7/2006 7:04:13 AM EDT
Link Posted: 4/7/2006 7:11:03 AM EDT
OK, but why would the organization want to do that, we all understand that that change would make the organization more friendly to law abiding citizens and be more ethical,

BUT why would they want to do that? what is the reason for internal change

if you were a policy maker, how would you sell that argument to the director of the BATFE, so they could impliment change all the way down to the individule agent
Link Posted: 4/7/2006 7:14:03 AM EDT

Originally Posted By shotar:

Originally Posted By m4hk33:
in one of my public policy courses(ethics and accountibility) we are talking about how ethical policy makers can have a tramendous impact on an organization and or the community. this got me to think about how screwed up the ATF is.

what argument could a policy maker make to the leadership of the BATFE to show that the organization is on the not on the correct track. how would could that policy maker sell that argument to the leadership to show that that change is the corect/ ethical way to proceed.

basically what argument could allow the ATF to change from the inside to be a better and more ethical organization





Simple, the ethics involved in law enforcement usually revolve around mens rea or the actual intent to commit the crime. If ATFE would concentrate on that singular point in enforcing the various laws under their pervue, then most people would have few problems with them. The key question for the investigator and prosecutor then is, did the person intend to violate the law. If they didn't then don't prosecute. That does not mean allow the illegal condition to persist, it means find other means than prosecution to correct them.



+1

If there is a legitimate violation, but no intent to violate the law, simply confiscate the contraband item(s) in question and call it a day.
Link Posted: 4/7/2006 7:16:41 AM EDT
Link Posted: 4/7/2006 7:16:43 AM EDT
Link Posted: 4/7/2006 7:17:55 AM EDT

Originally Posted By m4hk33:

basically what argument could allow the ATF to change from the inside to be a better and more ethical organization





Pink slips. Lots and lots of pink slips.

Link Posted: 4/7/2006 7:26:25 AM EDT
shotar,

i agree 100 percent, the head of the organization is going to run it their way, but how could you show them that may not be the best way to proceed. and that limited resources would best be suited being used in a diffrent manner


how do you show the director that the to accomplish their mission that some thing incredibly diffrent must be attempted

I totally understand that an agent will not be able to enact change, but is possible from other areas, such as congress or an EO from the president
Link Posted: 4/7/2006 7:29:33 AM EDT
Link Posted: 4/7/2006 7:35:59 AM EDT
you guys are missing the point, the real purpose of BATFE appears to be to disarm as many citizens as possible. to this end they are very sucessful, why should they change?
Link Posted: 4/7/2006 7:36:11 AM EDT
If BATFE institutional culture were focused on its actual status as a tax-collection, regulatory, and arson-investigation agency rather than a wannabe HSLD LE Agency, the difference would be night and day. They should be working in suits and carrying clipboards with built-in calculators, like your state revenue agents, not playing cops. That would be the biggest and best change that could be made.
Link Posted: 4/7/2006 7:42:38 AM EDT
we can all agree what change would be best and the reality of what they do now

but FALL1A

HOW would you sell that to your represntives that would ensure that a canident for the job would adhere to the origianl intent of the orgnaztion

HOW would you show thats the correct thing to do opposed to being HSLD LE operator wanabees?
Link Posted: 4/7/2006 7:47:32 AM EDT
Link Posted: 4/7/2006 7:52:32 AM EDT
when looking at this issue, one has to relize that change will allways be oppssed, but how do ou show that tax collector that the FBI is best suited to enforce law, as they are best suit at the other side of the issue

change is the public arena is incredbly difficult but it is poissble. i am just trying to uderstand this argumnet and know how to articulate it so that the right person may be able to get behind it and make a change for the better
Link Posted: 4/7/2006 7:59:16 AM EDT
It probably doesn't answer your question, but I don't see the BATFE as an "organization". They are a law enforcement agency. They are supposed to enforce laws, as they are passed. I don't like to think of the director of a law enforcement agency as having policies. They have laws they are tasked with enforceing, so what would be a policy? Enforce laws, or don't enforce laws?
"It is the policy of this law enforcement agency to enforce "law A", but not enforce "law B". " ???

I would like to see a policy of direct answers, and clear cut interpretation of laws. For instance, what about a letter from an agent of the BATFE that says after registering a short barreled rifle, there is not further legal requirement to mark or engrave the reciever. Then, in the very next paragraph, outline the legal requirements for engraveing an SBR. To me that is very ambiguious, since it conflicts with itself.
Link Posted: 4/7/2006 8:06:52 AM EDT
i dont know the answer to this, but where they always a LE agnecy or where the regulatory body, hence why they were put of the treasury department?

so how many federala LE agencies do we have?

DEA,
BATFE,
FBI,

sh­ould the FBI investigate and proscute federal crimes where as the the DEA and ATF there to provide technical assistance to them. or should they all be allowed to cross over eachothers jurisdiction and area of expertice
Link Posted: 4/7/2006 8:08:55 AM EDT

Originally Posted By shotar:

Originally Posted By m4hk33:
in one of my public policy courses(ethics and accountibility) we are talking about how ethical policy makers can have a tramendous impact on an organization and or the community. this got me to think about how screwed up the ATF is.

what argument could a policy maker make to the leadership of the BATFE to show that the organization is on the not on the correct track. how would could that policy maker sell that argument to the leadership to show that that change is the corect/ ethical way to proceed.

basically what argument could allow the ATF to change from the inside to be a better and more ethical organization





Simple, the ethics involved in law enforcement usually revolve around mens rea or the actual intent to commit the crime. If ATFE would concentrate on that singular point in enforcing the various laws under their pervue, then most people would have few problems with them. The key question for the investigator and prosecutor then is, did the person intend to violate the law. If they didn't then don't prosecute. That does not mean allow the illegal condition to persist, it means find other means than prosecution to correct them.



I dunno about that.. There are many laws that require general intent, where mere possession is illegal, and you don't need to intend to break the law for it to be illegal.
Link Posted: 4/7/2006 8:09:59 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 4/7/2006 8:12:10 AM EDT by FLAL1A]

Originally Posted By efpeter:
It probably doesn't answer your question, but I don't see the BATFE as an "organization". They are a law enforcement agency. They are supposed to enforce laws, as they are passed. I don't like to think of the director of a law enforcement agency as having policies. They have laws they are tasked with enforceing, so what would be a policy? Enforce laws, or don't enforce laws?
"It is the policy of this law enforcement agency to enforce "law A", but not enforce "law B". " ???




Every LE agency has express or implicit policies like this, resulting from decisions about resource allocation, if nothing else.

ETA: Yesterday, we tried to get the FBI to interview a client about a planned robbery of a federally-insured bank in another state. They told us that unless there is some assurance it'll involve over $500K, they aren't interested.
Link Posted: 4/7/2006 8:14:03 AM EDT

Originally Posted By efpeter:
It probably doesn't answer your question, but I don't see the BATFE as an "organization". They are a law enforcement agency. They are supposed to enforce laws, as they are passed. I don't like to think of the director of a law enforcement agency as having policies. They have laws they are tasked with enforceing, so what would be a policy? Enforce laws, or don't enforce laws?
"It is the policy of this law enforcement agency to enforce "law A", but not enforce "law B". " ???

I would like to see a policy of direct answers, and clear cut interpretation of laws. For instance, what about a letter from an agent of the BATFE that says after registering a short barreled rifle, there is not further legal requirement to mark or engrave the reciever. Then, in the very next paragraph, outline the legal requirements for engraveing an SBR. To me that is very ambiguious, since it conflicts with itself.





I was under the impression that until the move to DHS, that the BATFE was more akin to the IRS. Were these guys the revenooers of prohibition fame or did they come about afterwards?


96Ag
Link Posted: 4/7/2006 8:16:26 AM EDT

Originally Posted By 96Ag:

Originally Posted By efpeter:
It probably doesn't answer your question, but I don't see the BATFE as an "organization". They are a law enforcement agency. They are supposed to enforce laws, as they are passed. I don't like to think of the director of a law enforcement agency as having policies. They have laws they are tasked with enforceing, so what would be a policy? Enforce laws, or don't enforce laws?
"It is the policy of this law enforcement agency to enforce "law A", but not enforce "law B". " ???

I would like to see a policy of direct answers, and clear cut interpretation of laws. For instance, what about a letter from an agent of the BATFE that says after registering a short barreled rifle, there is not further legal requirement to mark or engrave the reciever. Then, in the very next paragraph, outline the legal requirements for engraveing an SBR. To me that is very ambiguious, since it conflicts with itself.





I was under the impression that until the move to DHS, that the BATFE was more akin to the IRS. Were these guys the revenooers of prohibition fame or did they come about afterwards?


96Ag



The move was to Justice, not DHS.
Link Posted: 4/7/2006 8:16:43 AM EDT
holy shit, thats dumb,

but here is the thing, if the ATF knew about a 10.5 upper in the same house as a non SBR ar15 lower, not attached, I dont think there is a limmit on what the would to bust that guy


Link Posted: 4/7/2006 8:22:48 AM EDT

Originally Posted By FLAL1A:
If BATFE institutional culture were focused on its actual status as a tax-collection, regulatory, and arson-investigation agency rather than a wannabe HSLD LE Agency, the difference would be night and day. They should be working in suits and carrying clipboards with built-in calculators, like your state revenue agents, not playing cops. That would be the biggest and best change that could be made.



I agree.
If they need to make a bust, co-ordinate with local law enforcement.
Link Posted: 4/7/2006 9:16:14 AM EDT

Originally Posted By thedoctors308:

Originally Posted By FLAL1A:
If BATFE institutional culture were focused on its actual status as a tax-collection, regulatory, and arson-investigation agency rather than a wannabe HSLD LE Agency, the difference would be night and day. They should be working in suits and carrying clipboards with built-in calculators, like your state revenue agents, not playing cops. That would be the biggest and best change that could be made.



I agree.
If they need to make a bust, co-ordinate with local law enforcement.



I think that with few exceptions all federal LEOs should be disarmed (other than, at most, handguns) and be required to coordinate risky operations with local LE, except where local LE are the targets. Then they can use the Marshals Service.
Link Posted: 4/7/2006 9:36:43 AM EDT
Link Posted: 4/7/2006 9:55:13 AM EDT

Originally Posted By happycynic:

Originally Posted By m4hk33:

basically what argument could allow the ATF to change from the inside to be a better and more ethical organization





Pink slips. Lots and lots of pink slips.




+1 The only change the ATF needs is Disbandment
Top Top