FBI director speaks out on court decision

[johnny.308]

Watch out for the FBI. The Director does not agree with Supreme Court decision on the Second Amendment.

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2008/07/01/national/main4222172.shtml

He may be the reason the Justice Department's ruling on the same subject, same conclusion, was removed from the Justice Department's web site. I saved a copy just before it disappeared.

http://thepatriotexchange.com/justice.htm

[jbgw]

Well it is nice to know (NOT) that one of the Chief LEO of the US of A has decided to contradict the Court which interprets the laws.
Tantamount to a General of the Armies contradicting the President in public.
BTW didn't McArthur get fired for just that?
Maybe this guy should be fired as well to drive home the message.

[SWOHFAL]

"A policeman's job is only easy in a police state."


Why do citizens need rights? They only prevent government from doing what's best for them. :rolleyes:

[Otis Treekiller]

Mueller said communities will have to determine their own license programs. As a former Marine who served in Vietnam, he said "I tend to believe weapons harm people and more often than not they harm the people carrying them."

Well then, I guess it's time for all FBI agents to turn in their weapons. I'd hate to see them hurt themselves.

What a douche.:rolleyes:

[John Culver]

ANd you can see that the us versus them mentality comes from the top down.

What a douche bag

[Brett]

He should suffer for his stupidity, but instead, he's the FBI director. It's becoming a trend.

[K.O.A.M.]

He's an idiot. A lot of Feebs are pencil pushing by the book types. He's obviously one.

[RG Coburn]

I wonder if he believes we shouldn't drive either,seeing how many people injure themselves with their automobiles....

[Dirtfarmer]

I'm a little shocked that you guys are driven to this level of histrionics by little more than a byline.
The man is entitled (literally ) to his opinion, and the only ones I see are that He believes weapons harm the people who carry them. (Plainly I disagree...) and that he hopes his grandchildrens' campus' will be "weapons free"...
Certainly I disagree, but he does not say "I disagaree with the SCOTUS ruling, or anything of the sort.
Folks, this is the argument that will be engaged, get used to it,

Scalia make an excellent point that it should yield to "strict scrutiny" in Ftnt 27,
and from there we have an excellent vantage...
Be thankful we are at this point of the debate, and not one of whether keep (and BEAR!, I should point out...) is an individual or collective right...
Believe me, many here hopes of hoodies with an over thecounter machine gun would NOT be a happy result, certainly not at THIS TIME.
Mountain out of a molehill...
Goodwill,
-Dirtfarmer

[martin35]

Mueller is a control freak he knows if all weapons are in the hands of those he deems fit to handle them it will simplify his job and the job of law enforcement. Small problem where will he be when someone decides to impose their lethal force on someone not allowed to protected themselves.
And he would promise protection to Mr. do-nut from muggers at any cop house.

[2barearms]

He's an *$#%@, and should read the laws for all the places that will be impacted by such an outrage. First, here in Texas, Cities can not enact
gun laws period. But I'm sure in some other places chaos is about to take
hold. I saw this one coming, as in DC you still can't just get a handgun, it
has to have a permit attached to each one. This is a disaster looking for a
lawsuit. I'd like to see what the NRA does when they try this shiite with rifles.

[308bolt]

Mueller's job is to enforce the laws as interpreted by his betters.

[ftierson]

Originally posted by 308bolt
Mueller's job is to enforce the laws as interpreted by his betters.

So was the job of Heinrich Muller (Mueller) as head of the Geheime Staatspolizei...

Forrest

[308bolt]

Originally posted by ftierson


So was the job of Heinrich Muller (Mueller) as head of the Geheime Staatspolizei...

Forrest

What a coincidence.

[Azrial]

Originally posted by John Culver
ANd you can see that the us versus them mentality comes from the top down.

What a douche bag
This guy is just a political hack. He does not represent the law enforcement of this country.

[Bruce Allen]

Welllllllllllllll.. not exactly Azrial..

He does seem to represent the IACP - International Association of Chief's of Police and the National Sheriff's Association all backed Clinton's "Brady Bill" back in the 1990's.

The rank and file did not, however.

[Azrial]

Originally posted by Bruce Allen
Welllllllllllllll.. not exactly Azrial..

He does seem to represent the IACP - International Association of Chief's of Police and the National Sheriff's Association all backed Clinton's "Brady Bill" back in the 1990's.

The rank and file did not, however.
And both those organizations are full of political hacks as well.

[J. Armstrong]

The FBI is as bad as the ATF anymore, not being satisfied with enforcing the law, they now want to make up their own. Crap, they have enough trouble with the six gazillion laws we already have and now they want more.

Feckers !

[STGThndr]

To Hell with them all, IMO. Hope this helps.

[brunop]

Originally posted by STGThndr
To Hell with them all, IMO. Hope this helps.

It most certainly does.

[John Culver]

Originally posted by Azrial

And both those organizations are full of political hacks as well.

How do you/can you get rid of them?

[ephv]

John Culver posted--

How do you/can you get rid of them?


Send them to Virginia Tech along with his daughter. After all, he was looking for a school with a "gun free zone". Maybe they won't make it back.

33dead and 15 wounded in a "no gun school zone." It could have been worse except for the wisdom of that no gun policy. :skull:

[gunner30]

Guns don't kill people, but DEA agents have been to shoot themselves with 40 cal weapons in the past. No, really.

Gunner

[Manedwolf]

Mueller said communities will have to determine their own license programs. As a former Marine who served in Vietnam, he said "I tend to believe weapons harm people and more often than not they harm the people carrying them."

"I'm the only one in this room professional enough to handle this Glock *BLAM*"

[Manedwolf]

Originally posted by Dirtfarmer
[B]I'm a little shocked that you guys are driven to this level of histrionics by little more than a byline.
The man is entitled (literally ) to his opinion, and the only ones I see are that He believes weapons harm the people who carry them.

The problem is that he is given free reign by law to kill you or raid your home. A high-level FBI agent could shoot you on the street, call you a threat...and nothing would happen to them.

That's the problem. When someone with that much power has that opinion.

[Heat]

Originally posted by 308bolt
Mueller's job is to enforce the laws as interpreted by his betters.
Yes, thats called the 'Nuremberg' Defense, used after the 2nd World War by the Nazi's..didnt work then, should not work now

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuremberg_Defense

The Nuremberg Defense is a legal defense that essentially states that the defendant was "only following orders" ("Befehl ist Befehl", literally "order is order") and is therefore not responsible for his crimes. The defense was most famously employed during the Nuremberg Trials, after which it is named.

[Heat]

Notice how the Government officials and their co-conspirators in the media keep saying the 2nd amendment defends our 'right' to 'guns' for Self Defense and Hunting?
This is how they cloud and muddy the waters...
I keep referring to this very succinct take on the SCOTUS decision:

"

http://wwwstayalive.blogspot.com/20...-to-garden.html


> http://www.scotusblog.com/wp/wp-con...8/06/07-290.pdf
> Held:
> 1. The Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a
> firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for
> traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home.
> Pp. 2_53.


My, my. I have most carefully read the 2nd and nowhere in it do I find
the word 'firearm' or 'gun'. What I find is the word 'arms'. That is
an all-inclusive term. It means anything from a rock in hand to.....
whatever. Any weapon. ANY weapon. ALL weapons. I will point out that
the redcoats of General Gage in Boston were seeking CREW SERVED
WEAPONS-- cannon-- when they made their foray to Concord on April 19,
1775.


> (a) The Amendment's prefatory clause announces a purpose, but
> does not limit or expand the scope of the second part, the operative
> clause. The operative clause's text and history demonstrate that it
> connotes an individual right to keep and bear arms. Pp. 2_22.


...being necessary to the security of a free state-- and what
interferes with a 'free state'? A meddlesome government...
Kindly notice that for all the lawyer talk, all the barnyard byproduct
legalese, the wording used in the 2nd is all positive and 'mandatory'
and inclusive for the citizenry, and precisely the opposite for
government. Government is utterly forbidden any ability to meddle,
while the citizenry is utterly empowered and made free of government
interference.
NECESSARY to the security of a free state....
... the RIGHT of the people--. inherent personal prerogative immune to
government meddling
...to keep and bear ARMS-- no restriction; any and all weaponry
SHALL NOT be infringed-- plain, positive, inclusive. Government, thou shalt not


> (b) The prefatory clause comports with the Court's interpretation
> of the operative clause. The "militia" comprised all males physically
> capable of acting in concert for the common defense. The Antifederal-
> ists feared that the Federal Government would disarm the people in
> order to disable this citizens' militia, enabling a politicized standing
> army or a select militia to rule. The response was to deny Congress
> power to abridge the ancient right of individuals to keep and bear
> arms, so that the ideal of a citizens' militia would be preserved.
> Pp. 22_28.


I suppose they hope that no one notices that this completely
invalidates most of the other 'findings' of the 'opinion'. That is,
(b) above points out that GOVERNMENT is the likely enemy and likely
target of any true employment of the purpose, the 'prefatory clause',
of the Amendment. Now, like a cat having defecated on linoleum, the
'honorable justices' set out to cover that 'inconvenient fact'.


> (c) The Court's interpretation is confirmed by analogous arms-
> bearing rights in state constitutions that preceded and immediately
> followed the Second Amendment. Pp. 28_30.
> (d) The Second Amendment's drafting history, while of dubious
> interpretive worth, reveals three state Second Amendment proposals
> that unequivocally referred to an individual right to bear arms.
> Pp. 30_32.


'Dubious interpretative worth'? They mean, the part where the Founders
clearly meant for the citizens to be armed and capable of overthrowing
the government when necessary?


> (e) Interpretation of the Second Amendment by scholars, courts
> and legislators, from immediately after its ratification through the
> late 19th century also supports the Court's conclusion. Pp. 32_47.


Once upon a time, in the lifetime of my father and grandfather, if you
wanted a weapon-- ANY weapon, ALL weapons, you simply went and bought
it. Artillery, explosives, auto weapons, short barreled anything, it
mattered not. If you wanted it and had the cash (gold and silver
coin), you found a willing seller and bought it. And who gives a bit
of care to what 'scholars, courts, and legislators' think about
something which is declared out of bounds to any restriction? The 2nd,
as written, precludes any and all effort to restrict weaponry or the
citizens' access to weaponry of their choice.


> (f) None of the Court's precedents forecloses the Court's interpre-
> tation. Neither United States v. Cruikshank, 92 U. S. 542, 553, nor
> Presser v. Illinois, 116 U. S. 252, 264_265, refutes the individual-
> rights interpretation. United States v. Miller, 307 U. S. 174, does not
> limit the right to keep and bear arms to militia purposes, but rather
> limits the type of weapon to which the right applies to those used by
> the militia, i.e., those in common use for lawful purposes. Pp. 47_54.


Here comes the barnyard byproduct. Here is the effort to remove and
hide the actual purpose of the 2nd-- that is, to hold a weapon at the
head of government. Here is the effort to 'allow' the criminals of
government to 'define' what 'type' of weapon the criminals are going
to 'allow'. And further, to declare 'for lawful purposes'-- that is,
what government SAYS is 'lawful'... and shooting politicians and their
'enforcers' for attempting to infringe on the 'security' of our 'free
state' will certainly not be considered a 'lawful purpose'. And
certainly not after having 70-odd years to freely restrict citizens'
access and employment of arms of the CITIZENS' choice.
I would ask-- what 'lawful purpose' did the armed citizenry of
Lexington and Concord Massachusetts and their environs pursue? Please
note that the 'lawful government' which would have been providing the
definition of 'lawful purpose' was the object of the exercise-- that
is, the redcoat enforcers of King George III.


> 2. Like most rights, the Second Amendment right is not unlimited.
> It is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any
> manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose: For example, con-
> cealed weapons prohibitions have been upheld under the Amendment
> or state analogues. The Court's opinion should not be taken to cast
> doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by
> felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of fire-
> arms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or
> laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of
> arms. Miller's holding that the sorts of weapons protected are those
> "in common use at the time" finds support in the historical tradition
> of prohibiting the carrying of dangerous and unusual weapons.
> Pp. 54_56.


So now they bless and allow 70-odd years of meddling to stand. Piss on
the Court. Whether or not the 'average gun owner' can read their
jumbled up and contradictory statements with comprehension, _I_ can.
And I see this as an unqualified victory for the tyrant. Government
infringement upon our RIGHT is clearly blessed by this 'honorable
court'.
> 3. The handgun ban and the trigger-lock requirement (as applied to
> self-defense) violate the Second Amendment. The District's total ban
> on handgun possession in the home amounts to a prohibition on an
> entire class of "arms" that Americans overwhelmingly choose for the
> lawful purpose of self-defense. Under any of the standards of scru-
> tiny the Court has applied to enumerated constitutional rights, this
> prohibition—in the place where the importance of the lawful defense
> of self, family, and property is most acute—would fail constitutional
> muster.


Do please note that the discussion has wheeled about and now the TRUE
purpose of the 2nd, to guarantee the citizenry the ability to resist
tyranny, is swept under the judicial floor covering of barnyard
byproduct. '(L)awful defense of self, family, and property'
conveniently conceals the fact that the citizens' weaponry is to
RESIST GOVERNMENT TYRANNY.


> Similarly, the requirement that any lawful firearm in the
'lawful firearm'? How does 'right to keep and bear arms' get morphed
into the concept of 'lawful firearm'? The intended target of the
weapons is now given the ability to DEFINE what is a 'lawful weapon'?
They can line up and kiss my unreconstructed rebel ass.


> home be disassembled or bound by a trigger lock makes it impossible
> for citizens to use arms for the core lawful purpose of self-defense and
'Core purpose of self defense'? Only when viewed in the larger sense
of 'self protection against GOVERNMENT'.


> is hence unconstitutional. Because Heller conceded at oral argument
> that the D. C. licensing law is permissible if it is not enforced arbi-
> trarily and capriciously, the Court assumes that a license will satisfy
> his prayer for relief and does not address the licensing requirement.


Oh, how sweet for Unca Sham. They hereby explicitly bless licensing.
And somehow 'shall not be infringed' is made moot. In many, many other
decisions, it is explicitly stated that a right cannot be made subject
to taxation nor licensing IN ANY FORM.
Nice try, black robed whores. Go try to peddle your barnyard byproduct
to someone who cannot see through your legal legerdemain.


> Assuming he is not disqualified from exercising Second Amendment
> rights, the District must permit Heller to register his handgun and
> must issue him a license to carry it in the home. Pp. 56_64.
> 478 F. 3d 370, affirmed.


So THIS is a 'victory' for the RIGHT to KEEP AND BEAR ARMS?
Sorry, folks, I can read plain English, and I know what was just done
to us. And that is, precisely what I have been predicting would
happen, all along.


William Michael Kemp
Liberty, Mississippi

[V guy]

You are overlooking the obvious here, besides the pure craven bureaucratic "end justifies the means" past policy BS...

Literally thousands of persons have been convicted of gun crimes that are noon violent, that might just have theri convictions reversed or at least vacated if the court continues to define gun laws....

Randy Weaver might eventually be cleared of possessing a short bbl shotgun.....if it is found that any bbl length on any weapon is quite logical and legal and therefore not logical to regulate bbl lengths.......or that if Hughes and the GCA acts of '34 and 68 are held to be not constitutional, as it is currently LEGAL for the class 3 weapons to be possesed...... as long as the state allows it (40 states) and you have the fed license........that might mean dumbass koresh would be innocent...and so forth...you get the trend---much of non violent GCA convictions history over the last 40 years might have to be vacated.....and current and future investigations that entrap people to sell weapons might be jeopardized....and the feds would have to go after illegal aliens and gangs and real crime instead of dumb joe....remember all prosecutions are based upon the easiest thing to prove and the what will get the job done...justice has nothing to do with it...........for example today in our newspaper, a real estate agent Named "Bizzarri" of all things, from Utica, NY who admitted he stole $476,000 from clients in a down payment theft scheme.....he only got 3 1/2 years, and no restitution..he gets to keep it all.....because that was the deal the prosecutor cut with the perps lawyer...perp gets to keep it all and his homes and cars and airplanes and boats.......it all depends upon the level of cravenness at the prosecutorial level....Mike Nifong lives!!!!

Government is very very threatened by this recent SCOTUS court decision and will fight tooth and nail as the cases are brought forward one by one.....that define and entend officially the concept that ALL amendments are operational against the states and the GCA's are unreasonable in their scope.......NYS knows that the end is close by for its antiquated gun laws and AWB and restrictive ANTI "shall issue" pistol permit policy.......

[Azrial]

Originally posted by John Culver
How do you/can you get rid of them?
Damn good question!

I love it when I see folks suggest that somehow making a lot of arrests will skyrocket an officer's career to the top. Many of the best officers are never promoted.

Being promoted, specially past middle management, is usually reserved for the guys that learn to play the game and support the decisions of the elected.

On a local level I believe that the answer is local citizen's reviews of the promotion boards and taking the time to make calls and write letters to local politicians when you see a officer that is the kind you want to see take a leadership role in your local law enforcement.

This is does not mean trying to help out your brother-in-law just because he is family.

I believe many officers here will agree that you see a lot of people rise to the top with very little ability.

[fastfreddy]

Originally posted by Azrial



you see a lot of people rise to the top with very little ability.

THAT is a fact, Jack.

Mueller looks to be proof of that.