Page 3 of 3 FirstFirst 123
Results 21 to 24 of 24

Thread: NFATCA Official Statement on Presidential Action

  1. #21
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2013
    Location
    Fort Worth, TX
    Posts
    172
    Quote Originally Posted by ExecDirector View Post
    And now they have stripped the filibuster from the Senate. Absolute power corrupts absolutely.
    It is only for Federal judicial appointments and cabinet level positions, but how long do you think it will take before they extend it to all appointments and legislation? If so, get ready for the anti-gun stuff to come back in full force.

    Our only hope is that we use it to our advantage when we are back in the majority.

  2. #22
    Junior Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2013
    Posts
    1
    Any comment regarding this?
    http://www.300blktalk.com/forum/view...?f=152&t=86626
    Quote Originally Posted by L1A1Rocker@300BLKTalk
    This will make your blood boil! Please go read the whole thing, but this is the real nuts of it:

    These are all serious and vital points, but there is another series of observations that begin on page 27 of the comment file that elaborate on concerns about the role of the NFATCA, and specifically the relationship of its president with ATF.

    “Docket entry ATF-2013-0001-0437 [view] is a public comment submitted by John Brown, apparently the very same John Brown who, as President of National Firearms Act Traders and Collectors Association (‘NFATCA’), submitted the petition to initiate a rulemaking on which ATF purports to base this proceeding,” FICG relates. “Repeated efforts to ascertain from Mr. Brown the details of the incidents as to which he asserts he has knowledge met refusals as he disavowed direct, personal knowledge stating only that as a result of ‘working inside ATF for over 10 years’ he knew things he ‘should never know.’"

    “[I]t would thus appear that ATF is itself the source of this information,” FICG infers. “The planting of comments that merely repeat to ATF the very information ATF purports to have but refused to submit to public critique exacerbates the problem of ATF's refusal to provide underlying information.

    “Mr. Brown's connection to ATF extends beyond his acknowledgment that the information to which he alluded in his comment came from ATF itself,” FICG continues. “Indeed, as Richard Vasquez -- ATF's Chief of the Firearms Training Branch and previous Assistant and Acting Chief of the Firearms Technology Branch -- testified under oath only last year, Mr. Brown ‘interacted with ATF a lot,’ was a friend since at least 2006, had personally transferred two firearms to him, had transferred firearms to other ATF employees, visited ATF ‘to meet and become personal with a lot of the offices’ over a period of years, and provided him with information to pass along to ATF for ATF's use in a forfeiture proceeding.

    “Mr. Brown apparently went so far as to forward e-mails he had received from a FFL involved in litigation with ATF to ATF for ATF's use in the litigation against the FFL,” the FICG narrative continues. “Indeed, Mr. Brown was not surprised to be characterized as a ‘confidential source’ for Acting Chief Vasquez and ATF.
    http://www.examiner.com/article/lawy...lector-s-group

  3. #23
    The whole article reads to me like someone that didn't bother to read the initial petition, and hasn't read the proposed rule as they are as similar as apples and carrots. All I see are allusions to the idea that NFATCA is the one driving to make this a reality which, from the facts at hand (the petition and the rule text), really doesn't hold water.

    In so far as Mr. Browns comments, there's nothing in there that wasn't already public knowledge (at least not if you're paying attention). ATF says they're proposing the rule because of felons getting NFA items. The comment suggests that if that's the case then perhaps they should do something meaningful and useful about it -- like use the NICS check system at pick up time.

    In short: it smells like a continuation of the same old smear campaign (and that will have no positive effect for any of us).

    In so far as providing information to ATF, there aren't enough facts available to us to draw any reasonable conclusion. For all any of us know, any emails that may have been provided could well have been compelled by court order. We simply don't know, and it's not any of our business either.

    The world is different when you have an FFL and ATF knocks on your door; even more so when that FFL is how you feed your family. Long on verbiage, short on content/facts.
    Last edited by sillycon; 12-12-2013 at 03:47 PM.

  4. #24
    The opinions expressed by Mr. Prince and echoed by Mr. Codrea are just that: opinions. They are drawing conclusions based upon their own personal selection of facts and do not tell the whole story. Matter of fact, Mr. Codrea has yet to reach out to Mr. Brown or the NFATCA for any type of fact checking. We cannot control what anyone says or feels about this issue and will not try to control public sentiment in any way.

    Suffice to say that Mr. Prince and Mr. Codrea have some sort of agenda that prefers to divide the community as opposed to unite it.

    Jeff Folloder

    NFATCA Executive Director
    www.nfatca.org










Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •