Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

FBI database for gun buyers missing millions of records

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #16
    Originally posted by Cambronnne View Post
    Except it is an issue of governmental immunity. That is the entire point of such a provision. You can’t wish that simple fact away.
    If it is a function of governmental immunity then your whole point in trying to blame conservatives falls apart.
    This type of provision applies to all federal workers regardless of the work they do.

    Selling government secrets is vastly different from accidentally failing to do a background check. The fact that you fail to understand the difference hurts your argument rather than helps it.

    Classified material belongs to the government. As a result, it is treated differently from a routine clerical function. There is no government employee anywhere (state, local, federal) who will be held liable for negligent performance of his job. That simple fact, wrecks your attempt to blame that provision on conservatives.

    Try to sue the State for issuing a driver’s license to someone who will use his car in the commission of a crime, or the Department of Transportaion for a poorly designed road, or failure to place signs. Governmental immunity prevents all such suits and is not the result of those evil, bad conservatives.
    Except that as I told you, the government decides regarding if federal employees can be held liable or not. As I said, the government (federal or local) DOES go after employees who do not follow the protocol or the laws about things that are considered important, such as, the handling of classified information In addition, we are not talking about the public being able to sue the federal or local government (which is the objective of having government immunity). We are talking about the federal and local governments being reluctant to sue employees.
    My most dangerous mission: I landed in the middle of an enemy tank battalion and I immediately, started spraying bullets killing everybody around me having fun up until my computer froze...

    Comment


    • #17
      Originally posted by phil74501 View Post
      With all do respect, you are, in effect, making the NRA's point for them...or at least one of their points. The NRA asserts that we don't need new laws, we need to enforce the laws that are on the books. You're proving that to be 100% correct. If the current laws aren't going to be enforced, what good does it do to enact more laws?

      Firearms background checks are a federal law/function. It's not on the states if the folks in DC fail to do so correctly/thoroughly. Why should people care if a law that they don't agree with, or like, is enforced? It's not the individual persons responsibility to enforce those laws. Ultimately you cannot stop people from breaking the law if the choose to do so, otherwise we wouldn't have prisons.
      What I am saying is that laws that do not hold people accountable are not enforceable. The law must not shield government employees when they screw-up. And when you have certain states reporting only 80% of their felony convictions, it is obvious that such result is an intentional choice, or at best, a result of criminal negligence. If government employees CAN be held legally accountable about how they handle classified information, there is no argument that somehow we cannot hold them accountable about how the handle felony convictions reports...
      My most dangerous mission: I landed in the middle of an enemy tank battalion and I immediately, started spraying bullets killing everybody around me having fun up until my computer froze...

      Comment


      • #18
        Originally posted by pamak View Post
        Except that as I told you, the government decides regarding if federal employees can be held liable or not. As I said, the government (federal or local) DOES go after employees who do not follow the protocol or the laws about things that are considered important, such as, the handling of classified information In addition, we are not talking about the public being able to sue the federal or local government (which is the objective of having government immunity). We are talking about the federal and local governments being reluctant to sue employees.


        Excuse me, but I find it funny you are trying to change the subject.
        You condemned conservatives for the language in an act that protected federal employees from suit for negligent performance of their jobs

        In an effort to defend this ridiculous assertion you are changing the subject to laws regarding the theft of government secrets.
        Feel free to cite to any law that supports your belief that other federal employees can be sued for the negligent performance of their jobs.
        And before you waste too much time I would direct you to:

        https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/28/2679

        The act provides, in pertinent part:
        (1) The remedy against the United States provided by sections 1346(b) and 2672 of this title for injury or loss of property, or personal injury or death arising or resulting from the negligent or wrongful act or omission of any employee of the Government while acting within the scope of his office or employment is exclusive of any other civil action or proceeding for money damages by reason of the same subject matter against the employee whose act or omission gave rise to the claim or against the estate of such employee. Any other civil action or proceeding for money damages arising out of or relating to the same subject matter against the employee or the employee’s estate is precluded without regard to when the act or omission occurred.

        (emphasis added)

        Your original point was the negligent performance of one's job, federal law grants immunity for that, but it does not grant immunity to employees for the violation of other laws (statutes). So if you break the law and steal government info, you don't have immunity.

        By the way, the act I quoted above was expanded in 1988 by the famous conservative Barney Frank.
        https://www.govtrack.us/congress/bills/100/hr4358
        Avatar is General Gerard, courtesy of Zouave.

        Churchill to Chamberlain: you had a choice between war and dishonor. You chose dishonor, and you will have war.

        Comment


        • #19
          Originally posted by pamak View Post
          Except that as I told you, the government decides regarding if federal employees can be held liable or not. As I said, the government (federal or local) DOES go after employees who do not follow the protocol or the laws about things that are considered important, such as, the handling of classified information In addition, we are not talking about the public being able to sue the federal or local government (which is the objective of having government immunity). We are talking about the federal and local governments being reluctant to sue employees.
          Yea, except now we have the "Hillary defense..."

          http://thehill.com/policy/defense/29...ormation-cases

          https://townhall.com/tipsheet/mattve...-less-n2189307

          Comment


          • #20
            Originally posted by Cambronnne View Post
            Excuse me, but I find it funny you are trying to change the subject.
            You condemned conservatives for the language in an act that protected federal employees from suit for negligent performance of their jobs

            In an effort to defend this ridiculous assertion you are changing the subject to laws regarding the theft of government secrets.
            Feel free to cite to any law that supports your belief that other federal employees can be sued for the negligent performance of their jobs.
            And before you waste too much time I would direct you to:

            https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/28/2679

            The act provides, in pertinent part:
            (1) The remedy against the United States provided by sections 1346(b) and 2672 of this title for injury or loss of property, or personal injury or death arising or resulting from the negligent or wrongful act or omission of any employee of the Government while acting within the scope of his office or employment is exclusive of any other civil action or proceeding for money damages by reason of the same subject matter against the employee whose act or omission gave rise to the claim or against the estate of such employee. Any other civil action or proceeding for money damages arising out of or relating to the same subject matter against the employee or the employee’s estate is precluded without regard to when the act or omission occurred.

            (emphasis added)

            Your original point was the negligent performance of one's job, federal law grants immunity for that, but it does not grant immunity to employees for the violation of other laws (statutes). So if you break the law and steal government info, you don't have immunity.

            By the way, the act I quoted above was expanded in 1988 by the famous conservative Barney Frank.
            https://www.govtrack.us/congress/bills/100/hr4358
            Do not make ridiculous claims before investigating the issues you want to discuss...

            https://ir.stthomas.edu/cgi/viewcont...&context=ustlj

            II. TYPES OF PERSONAL LIABILITY CLAIMS AGAINST FEDERAL
            EMPLOYEES SOUNDING IN TORT

            There are three types of personal liability claims sounding in tort
            against federal employees in their individual capacities: (1) personal liability
            claims premised upon an alleged violation of the Constitution;11 (2) personal
            liability claims premised upon a violation of a federal statute;12
            (3) personal liability claims premised upon a violation of state tort law.13
            This article will discuss the most common defense strategies for each type
            of claim.14
            The laws are not that simple as you think, and the government has a lot of flexibility regarding how to structure laws that permit suing employees for negligence

            https://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/CHRG-1...0shrg34268.htm


            As a consequence of exposing Federal firefighting
            supervisors to criminal liability, we are now seeing some who
            are indicating that because that is only a portion of their
            job--the type 3 incident commanders, for instance--they are
            declining to keep their training current because they do not
            see the point of exposing themselves and their families to
            criminal liability.
            Additionally, if the Federal Government insists on carrying such a
            law on the books that places an unfair burden and disadvantage upon
            federal wildland firefighters as compared to other federal, state &
            local firefighters, it, the federal Government, should pay for the
            entire cost of Personal Liability Insurance (PLI).
            And do not give me the BS that holding employees criminally liable is not practical because it is difficult somehow to update the databases because we DO have examples of state employees and states which do NOT fail to update the database by reporting only 80% of their felony convictions.
            Last edited by pamak; 11 Nov 17, 16:19.
            My most dangerous mission: I landed in the middle of an enemy tank battalion and I immediately, started spraying bullets killing everybody around me having fun up until my computer froze...

            Comment


            • #21
              Originally posted by pamak View Post
              Do not make ridiculous claims before investigating the issues you want to discuss...

              https://ir.stthomas.edu/cgi/viewcont...&context=ustlj



              The laws are not that simple as you think, and the government has a lot of flexibility regarding how to structure laws that permit suing employees for criminal negligence

              https://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/CHRG-1...0shrg34268.htm






              And do not give me the BS that holding employees criminally liable is not practical because it is difficult somehow to update the databases because we DO have examples of state employees and states which do NOT fail to update the database by reporting only 80% of their felony convictions.


              I regret that you have no understanding of the language you quoted.
              It does not create causes of actions, it categorizes them.
              The language I quoted establishes immunity for any negligent act or omission in the performance of their job.
              That resolves the issue.
              But feel free to think otherwise.

              You should have read more of your link. It discusses immunity.
              There is no immunity for acts that violate the constitution. There is immunity for the negligent performance of one’s job. If you understood the difference between the 2 I suspect you wouldn’t have linked that article.

              Engaging in an unconstitutional act is explicitly outside the scope of one’s job.

              If fed employees break the law and are subject to criminal prosecution that means they are acting outside the scope of their job so there would be no immunity under the concept I have discussed.
              We don’t get to make up the law as we go along no matter what you want to believe.

              Now, please direct me to the law that says what you claimed.
              1) That conservatives (like Barney frank?) provided immunity in the statute in an effort to avoid personal liability for the negligent performance of their job in background checks.
              2) and, or the law that rebuts the statute I cited to providing immunity for the performance of one’s job.
              Avatar is General Gerard, courtesy of Zouave.

              Churchill to Chamberlain: you had a choice between war and dishonor. You chose dishonor, and you will have war.

              Comment


              • #22
                Originally posted by Cambronnne View Post
                I regret that you have no understanding of the language you quoted.
                It does not create causes of actions, it categorizes them.
                The language I quoted establishes immunity for any negligent act or omission in the performance of their job.
                That resolves the issue.

                But feel free to think otherwise.

                You should have read more of your link. It discusses immunity.
                There is no immunity for acts that violate the constitution. There is immunity for the negligent performance of one’s job. If you understood the difference between the 2 I suspect you wouldn’t have linked that article.

                Engaging in an unconstitutional act is explicitly outside the scope of one’s job.

                If fed employees break the law and are subject to criminal prosecution that means they are acting outside the scope of their job so there would be no immunity under the concept I have discussed.
                We don’t get to make up the law as we go along no matter what you want to believe.

                Now, please direct me to the law that says what you claimed.
                1) That conservatives (like Barney frank?) provided immunity in the statute in an effort to avoid personal liability for the negligent performance of their job in background checks.
                2) and, or the law that rebuts the statute I cited to providing immunity for the performance of one’s job.
                I even gave you an example in which federal firefighting supervisors could be held liable. I thought that you could at least understand concrete examples but you cannot even understand them...

                Will bold sentences help?

                From the same link I gave above...

                As a consequence of exposing Federal firefighting
                supervisors to criminal liability, we are now seeing some who
                are indicating that because that is only a portion of their
                job--the type 3 incident commanders, for instance--they are
                declining to keep their training current because they do not
                see the point of exposing themselves and their families to
                criminal liability.
                Additionally, if the Federal Government insists on carrying such a
                law on the books that places an unfair burden and disadvantage upon
                federal wildland firefighters as compared to other federal, state &
                local firefighters, it, the federal Government, should pay for the
                entire cost of Personal Liability Insurance (PLI).
                The above is from

                HEARING

                before the

                COMMITTEE ON
                ENERGY AND NATURAL RESOURCES
                UNITED STATES SENATE

                ONE HUNDRED TENTH CONGRESS

                FIRST SESSION

                on

                THE STATUS OF THE FEDERAL LAND MANAGEMENT AGENCIES EFFORTS TO CONTAIN
                THE COSTS OF THEIR WILDFIRE SUPPRESSION ACTIVITIES AND TO CONSIDER
                RECENT INDEPENDENT REVIEWS OF AND RECOMMENDATIONS FOR THOSE EFFORTS

                __________

                JANUARY 30, 2007
                Last edited by pamak; 11 Nov 17, 16:35.
                My most dangerous mission: I landed in the middle of an enemy tank battalion and I immediately, started spraying bullets killing everybody around me having fun up until my computer froze...

                Comment


                • #23
                  Originally posted by Urban hermit View Post
                  There are numerous laws in the books intended to make society safer that are just not implemented. This is one of them.
                  No, it is not. That law dates back to the Brady era where it was passed to harass legal gun owners. Thankfully Congress gutting it by gutting the punishment portion for non-compliance.

                  Nor would it make society any safer, as has been repeatedly explained to you.

                  Originally posted by Urban hermit View Post
                  How many felons would be off the streets if the law were adhered to by all agencies?
                  We will never know.
                  Actually, we do know: few to none, because, once again, it is FEDERAL code and can only be enforced by 5% of the nation's police, including the Border Patrol.

                  Originally posted by Urban hermit View Post
                  Congress has a terrible record of passing laws and legal procedures, licensing and permitting authority. Then failing to provide funding required to institute these rule.


                  The law as passed is for all practical purposes unenforceable. But it looks cool to idiots, so the gun control people pushed it through and went home telling everyone what av great job they did.

                  The big secret of gun control is: it does not work.

                  Look at Detroit, Chicago, Baltimore: toughest gun laws in the nature, enforceable in each city by more LEOs than the Feds have, and they are war zones.

                  Originally posted by Urban hermit View Post
                  The end result is a lot of paper work under threat of prosecution for gun store owners and those citizens who are law abiding citizens. And a good laugh for LEOs and their many customers the hard core criminals.
                  It takes about two minutes to fill out that form.

                  Originally posted by Urban hermit View Post
                  If the system had been strictly followed 26 people would still be alive today, the killer would have been arrested for violating the terms of his parole and for lying on the ATF form.
                  I know AJ won’t agree with that assessment. But the penalty is written right on the form.
                  AJR doesn't agree because you are simplifying this to absurdity.

                  The Feds are bluffing, hoping the felons are dumb enough not to know that in many cases the nearest person with the legal authority to enforce said law is a hundred miles away.

                  The penalty is written upon the form, but not the elements of the offense, which are not in your See Dick Run approach to the legal system.

                  Nor would it stop the shooter from buying his weapon from the many legal options that don't require the form. Or any one of thousands of illegal venues.

                  None of this is new.
                  Any man can hold his place when the bands play and women throw flowers; it is when the enemy presses close and metal shears through the ranks that one can acertain which are soldiers, and which are not.

                  Comment


                  • #24
                    Originally posted by Arnold J Rimmer View Post
                    No, it is not. That law dates back to the Brady era where it was passed to harass legal gun owners. Thankfully Congress gutting it by gutting the punishment portion for non-compliance.

                    Nor would it make society any safer, as has been repeatedly explained to you.



                    Actually, we do know: few to none, because, once again, it is FEDERAL code and can only be enforced by 5% of the nation's police, including the Border Patrol.





                    The law as passed is for all practical purposes unenforceable. But it looks cool to idiots, so the gun control people pushed it through and went home telling everyone what av great job they did.

                    The big secret of gun control is: it does not work.

                    Look at Detroit, Chicago, Baltimore: toughest gun laws in the nature, enforceable in each city by more LEOs than the Feds have, and they are war zones.



                    It takes about two minutes to fill out that form.



                    AJR doesn't agree because you are simplifying this to absurdity.

                    The Feds are bluffing, hoping the felons are dumb enough not to know that in many cases the nearest person with the legal authority to enforce said law is a hundred miles away.

                    The penalty is written upon the form, but not the elements of the offense, which are not in your See Dick Run approach to the legal system.

                    Nor would it stop the shooter from buying his weapon from the many legal options that don't require the form. Or any one of thousands of illegal venues.

                    None of this is new.
                    I can expose the double talk quite easily by posting what you have said about how the feds have ways to enforce laws related to illegal immigration even when local governments do not want to cooperate

                    This is you

                    http://www.armchairgeneral.com/forum...ts#post3320073

                    Originally posted by Arnold J Rimmer View Post
                    It is a complex issue, legally.

                    By law a city, county, parish, or state cannot refuse to enforce Federal statutes.

                    However, enforcement in most cases is done by civil process. This really doesn't impact often because most states duplicate many Federal laws (for instance all 50 states ban full-auto weapons without a Federal Firearms license), and the Feds enforce nearly all their unique laws (the Feds will come after you for not paying your income tax, they don't need state help).

                    Immigration is one of the areas where the Feds need help, especially in temporary housing. Local police cannot arrest illegal immigrants, because we do not enforce Federal law; however, we can detain them and contact ICE, who then authorizes us to jail them pending transfer to a Federal facility.

                    That is how it works in 90% of the county. However, a few cities have declined to house illegals for ICE.

                    Not, the Feds could go to court and the cities would surely loose, but it could take years to sort out because the first time is always lengthy.

                    The simpler method is to pull Federal funding. Federal grants and programs have pages of conditions, so the POTUS can pull the funding without much trouble. This can range from moderately harm to devastating, depending upon the city's economy.

                    In Texas we only have a couple sanctuary cities, but the governor is threatening to match a termination of Federal funds with a termination of state funds as well. The Texas economy is strong so the cities could probably weather the storm for an extended period providing the voters don't mind the extra burden. Except for Dallas, whose police department is leaving en masse and who relies upon State Troopers to make up the difference.

                    Elsewhere, as Slick notes, the margin may not be so fat.

                    There are a hundred ways the Feds can screw with local governments with impunity.
                    It is interesting how your imagination disappears when the issue is about enforcing federal laws on gun control, and how desperately you try to push the story of how incapable the Feds are to make things work...
                    Last edited by pamak; 11 Nov 17, 20:11.
                    My most dangerous mission: I landed in the middle of an enemy tank battalion and I immediately, started spraying bullets killing everybody around me having fun up until my computer froze...

                    Comment


                    • #25
                      Originally posted by Arnold J Rimmer View Post
                      No, it is not. That law dates back to the Brady era where it was passed to harass legal gun owners. Thankfully Congress gutting it by gutting the punishment portion for non-compliance.

                      Nor would it make society any safer, as has been repeatedly explained to you.



                      Actually, we do know: few to none, because, once again, it is FEDERAL code and can only be enforced by 5% of the nation's police, including the Border Patrol.





                      The law as passed is for all practical purposes unenforceable. But it looks cool to idiots, so the gun control people pushed it through and went home telling everyone what av great job they did.

                      The big secret of gun control is: it does not work.

                      Look at Detroit, Chicago, Baltimore: toughest gun laws in the nature, enforceable in each city by more LEOs than the Feds have, and they are war zones.



                      It takes about two minutes to fill out that form.



                      AJR doesn't agree because you are simplifying this to absurdity.

                      The Feds are bluffing, hoping the felons are dumb enough not to know that in many cases the nearest person with the legal authority to enforce said law is a hundred miles away.

                      The penalty is written upon the form, but not the elements of the offense, which are not in your See Dick Run approach to the legal system.

                      Nor would it stop the shooter from buying his weapon from the many legal options that don't require the form. Or any one of thousands of illegal venues.

                      None of this is new.
                      GOD HAS SPOKEN.
                      Politics is the art of looking for trouble, finding it everywhere, diagnosing it incorrectly and applying the wrong remedies.

                      Comment


                      • #26
                        As the database become updated, there will be more and more former military who will be banned from gun ownership. I don't think this will go smoothly. I can see many who will blame the VA for turning their names in to the database. Whether they deserve it or not, it doesn't feel right to me.

                        Comment


                        • #27
                          Yet they still denied my brother a purchase a result of a typo on an arrest report.

                          He was picked up for "Failure to Pay Child Support." The record indicated it was a misdemeanor arrest, but somehow he was charged as a felon and the sentencing box was blank! Putting two and two together the FBI bureaucrat ought to have realized something was off with either the contradicting arrest/charge or the fact that the paperwork showed he was never sentenced, but the Feds being the Feds....

                          Took it down to the County Clerk's Office and they said "Oh, this thing happens all the time." Well after meeting with the prosecuting attorney, Michigan State Police (who apparently made the error), etc. he finally got it fixed on this end. FBI still has to get their side fixed.

                          Tuebor

                          Comment


                          • #28
                            Originally posted by Urban hermit View Post
                            GOD HAS SPOKEN.


                            Point out those sections which you know, from training and experience with the system, are false.

                            Just because it is new to you and the reporter who wrote the article that got you all excited, doesn't mean it is news.
                            Any man can hold his place when the bands play and women throw flowers; it is when the enemy presses close and metal shears through the ranks that one can acertain which are soldiers, and which are not.

                            Comment


                            • #29
                              Originally posted by Nikki View Post
                              As the database become updated, there will be more and more former military who will be banned from gun ownership. I don't think this will go smoothly. I can see many who will blame the VA for turning their names in to the database. Whether they deserve it or not, it doesn't feel right to me.
                              I doubt they will be reported. Two million is, IMO, a very low number. The program is a joke.
                              Any man can hold his place when the bands play and women throw flowers; it is when the enemy presses close and metal shears through the ranks that one can acertain which are soldiers, and which are not.

                              Comment


                              • #30
                                Originally posted by pamak View Post
                                I even gave you an example in which federal firefighting supervisors could be held liable. I thought that you could at least understand concrete examples but you cannot even understand them...

                                Will bold sentences help?

                                From the same link I gave above...





                                The above is from

                                HEARING

                                before the

                                COMMITTEE ON
                                ENERGY AND NATURAL RESOURCES
                                UNITED STATES SENATE

                                ONE HUNDRED TENTH CONGRESS

                                FIRST SESSION

                                on

                                THE STATUS OF THE FEDERAL LAND MANAGEMENT AGENCIES EFFORTS TO CONTAIN
                                THE COSTS OF THEIR WILDFIRE SUPPRESSION ACTIVITIES AND TO CONSIDER
                                RECENT INDEPENDENT REVIEWS OF AND RECOMMENDATIONS FOR THOSE EFFORTS

                                __________

                                JANUARY 30, 2007


                                Um, your quotes refer to “criminal” liability and mine refer to “negligence”.
                                The fact that you don’t recognize the difference between the 2 concepts tells me that you have no clue of what I am talking about. Despite this, you continue to try and lecture me about immunity.

                                If you break the law, criminal liability may result, if you fail to do your job properly, like maintain a database, that is likely a negligent act.
                                There is no immunity for breaking the law, (or violating constitutional rights)but there is immunity for failing to do your job properly. (Negligent acts)
                                Providing for insurance isn’t the same thing as waiving the explicit immunities I’ve identified. (See the “Rule of Statutory Construction”)

                                You can’t sue the police for failing to stop someone from shooting you, but you can sue the police if they shoot you.
                                In the first instance, the cops may have failed to do their job properly, in the second they have arguably broken the law.

                                None of this has anything to do with a conservative effort to avoid personal liability as you have claimed. It is how the law works. Proving that federal employees can be held criminally liable doesn’t support anything you’ve claimed or refute anything I’ve said.
                                Last edited by Cambronnne; 12 Nov 17, 06:25.
                                Avatar is General Gerard, courtesy of Zouave.

                                Churchill to Chamberlain: you had a choice between war and dishonor. You chose dishonor, and you will have war.

                                Comment

                                Latest Topics

                                Collapse

                                Working...
                                X