PDA

View Full Version : Is there no consequence for the DOJ exceeding its authority?


TonyNorCal
04-04-2006, 1:40 PM
Doesn't it bother you that in a nation of law the DOJ seems to operate in an almost self-created extra-legal plane? Is there no consequence or accountability here?

To wit....

1.) The DOJ is able to confiscate lawfully purchased receivers on a BS technicality...but then fail to return them once that technicality was corrected (which was the same day I might add). And here we are months later, with them holding lawfully purchased property, and there seems to be no means (short of spending lots of money) by which the rightful owners can address the issue. That's not how America should work.

2.) The DOJ calls out of state manufacturers with threats and intimidation. Um, ok. Isn't it the STATE supreme court that ruled these lowers are in fact LEGAL. Shouldn't the State DOJ be subject to rulings of the State Supreme Court? Is this just insane or what?

3.) Some DOJ employees give FALSE information to local FFLs. I am aware of one DOJ employee who has told an FFL that AK receivers are illegal. Well, according to Kasler and the memo posted ON THE DOJ's OWN WEBSITE there is no difference between an AK and AR receiver. In fact, Kasler was about a freakin' AK! FFLs call the DOJ in law-abiding, good faith...trying to do the right thing...and are just lied to.

I am sure there are other such instances...chime in

What bothers me is this....

This is a nation of law...the DOJ is agency of the state which is responsible for enforcing the law...fair enough, we choose to live in Cali and thus we follow the law...as much as we disagree it's what we do.

But...shouldn't the DOJ also also follow the law? Shouldn't they act with integrity?

As the Roman satirist Juvenal said...

Sed quis custodiet ipsos Custodes?

“Who guards the guardians?”

Major Miner II
04-04-2006, 1:50 PM
Of course we have options.

Vote in someone who will effect change.

Democracy is a wonderful thing.

TonyNorCal
04-04-2006, 2:17 PM
I am basically just ranting above...

but...


While democracy is a wonderful thing and ultimately can affect change in law I am talking specifically about the DOJ. The DOJ is not an elected body (with the obvious exception of Tony Soprano at the top).

Most of the nonsense coming from the DOJ is coming from the rank and file...career people who seem beholden to no law.

The actions of the DOJ should really not be influenced* by who is in office. The law is the law. The DOJ should both enforce and follow it.

That's all heh...not asking for the moon and the stars here...just a little integrity...but in this case perhaps that is asking for the moon and at least a few stars :p


*Clearly different AGs will emphasize different things. But selective emphasis is different than making up your own rules.

DrjonesUSA
04-04-2006, 2:28 PM
As the Roman satirist Juvenal said...

Sed quis custodiet ipsos Custodes?

“Who guards the guardians?”


The people do.

We have the right to petition for redress of grievances; See The Bill Of Rights, Amendment I.

Should that fail, see Amendment II.

Our Forefathers believed that The People were the masters and the government was the servant, albeit a poor one.

Our government needs to be reminded who is really in charge.

DrjonesUSA
04-04-2006, 2:31 PM
Of course we have options.

Vote in someone who will effect change.

Democracy is a wonderful thing.


Democracy is a horrible thing, right up there with communism.

Aristotle and all our Founding Fathers knew this.

http://www.angelfire.com/pa/sergeman/quotes/dem.html

That is why we are a Constitutional Republic.

M1A Rifleman
04-04-2006, 2:36 PM
Its not only the DOJ, how about the BATFE, the Regional Water Quality Control Board, EPA, Coastal Commission - insert any other bureaucratically run organization that is not subject to the will of the people. Your options are to 1) vote-in someone who cares, 2) run the issue through the court system many times to force compliance.

Major Miner II
04-04-2006, 2:45 PM
Democracy is a horrible thing, right up there with communism.

Aristotle and all our Founding Fathers knew this.

http://www.angelfire.com/pa/sergeman/quotes/dem.html

That is why we are a Constitutional Republic.
A constitutional republic is still a democracy.

But this is a discussion for another thread.

glen avon
04-04-2006, 2:48 PM
I think he's thinking along the lines of a writ of mandate

bwiese
04-04-2006, 2:55 PM
Doesn't it bother you that in a nation of law the DOJ seems to operate in an almost self-created extra-legal plane? Is there no consequence or accountability here?

That's always the battle with regulatory law. Regulatory/admin agencies become fiefdoms in their own right, 100% blindered by their mission from opposing viewpoints. Plus, the fight to "look busy" to retain/increase budget means activity in spite of sanity, whatever the cost.



1.) The DOJ is able to confiscate lawfully purchased receivers on a BS technicality...but then fail to return them once that technicality was corrected (which was the same day I might add). And here we are months later, with them holding lawfully purchased property, and there seems to be no means (short of spending lots of money) by which the rightful owners can address the issue. That's not how America should work.

The BS technicality is over/solved - as far as the cubic footage of gun safe issue. The lingering aspects are the characteristics of that particular group buy. It will be solved favorably but you bet your arse they'll take their sweet time.


2.) The DOJ calls out of state manufacturers with threats and intimidation. Um, ok. Isn't it the STATE supreme court that ruled these lowers are in fact LEGAL. Shouldn't the State DOJ be subject to rulings of the State Supreme Court? Is this just insane or what?

The DOJ falls back on 12276(e)/(f) ("variations" and "legislative intent" declarations) instead of Harrott. In truth, one of the 58 DAs could make an attempt to do this and in theory the DOJ is trying to 'protect' you from that :)

3.) Some DOJ employees give FALSE information to local FFLs. I am aware of one DOJ employee who has told an FFL that AK receivers are illegal. Well, according to Kasler and the memo posted ON THE DOJ's OWN WEBSITE there is no difference between an AK and AR receiver. In fact, Kasler was about a freakin' AK! FFLs call the DOJ in law-abiding, good faith...trying to do the right thing...and are just lied to.

Sometimes idiocy isn't always a lie. I am sure there are still some DOJ FD reps, etc that really don't know about Harrott and Kasler differences and they still think "an AR is an AR is an AR..." . Even the more knowledgable ones still give out wrong info (even with no intent to mislead).

Call the IRS or BATF or EPA and you'll get similar wrong answers. Relying on a desk clerk for info is not a legal defense, either. I believe sometimes agencies put people that say the wrong things in front of 'customers' so results favor the agency's politics and/or budget.

For example, my mom was under the impression that my dad - who was in an $5+K/month nursing home before he died - would not have any Medi-Cal coverage, and that the popular assumption that "you have to spend yourself broke down to the last $2K before being eligible" was in fact operative for them. (And if you call a Medi-Cal office that is what you are likely to be told by the phone agents.) It turns out that if you sue the agency, an administrative law judge sets things up so the "community spouse" retains the house lien-free, and reasonable bank assets (usu the existing account is rubber-stamped unless very rich), while the ill spouse's SS & Medicare & insurance payments - with only a very very minor spousal contribution - cover the nursing home, with Medical making up the difference. This is why you pay $15K to an elder care attorney who knows these things :)

Mesa Tactical
04-04-2006, 3:14 PM
“Who guards the guardians?”

Certainly not Congress: http://news.yahoo.com/s/thenation/20060403/cm_thenation/1573945_1

Wulf
04-05-2006, 7:37 AM
What we really need is a law that makes it a crime for a government agent to knowingly communicate a falsehood to a member of the public, except for sworn Law Enforcment in pursuit of a specific active criminal investigation. If someone solicits information from the DOJ, or any other agency for that matter, the government employee should be obligated to provide true and accurate information to the best of their ability.

If you ask a cop what the speed limit is on Maple Street he should be required, by law, to provide accurate information to the best of his ability. He specifically should not be allowed to lie to you a number higher than the limit and then follow you and pull you over for speeding when you follow that guidance. He should also not be allowed to tell you a speed limit lower than the posted one because its his personal opinion that the limit on Maple street is too high (that's essentially what DOJ is doing).

This might be fertile ground for a ballot propoisition. The Left and the Right would line up for it and it would scare the poop out of the government, which is exactly how the world is suposed to work.

Surveyor
04-05-2006, 7:41 AM
...He should also not be allowed to tell you a speed limit lower than the posted one because its his personal opinion that the limit on Maple street is too high (that's essentially what DOJ is doing)...


Perfect analogy!

Justang
04-06-2006, 7:09 AM
There should be some sort of action for this. They shouldn't be allowed to get away with their actions.

In a perfect world we could just vote somebody new in. But people only vote for their agenda. They hate guns, they put a gun grabber in office... nevermind that they are taking freedoms away. People don't care about taking freedoms away, just so long as it isn't their freedoms.