Posted on 02/16/2018 10:58:07 AM PST by EyesOfTX
“is wrong” ——> “are wrong”....and I thought I had proofread before sending...
I didn’t forget the Vegas massacre at all. I’ve written extensively about the FBI’s incompetence on that one as well.
“Cruz should have been on the FBI reject purchase list, but wasn’t.”
Oh, hell no. You can’t deny a man a gun on the basis of a couple of tips. Leftards would be spending all day phoning in bogus “tips” about Trump people.
Flag them how, exactly, and to what end?
No trust whatsoever in the FBI. They seem more prone to problem causing and lying than being of any service to the American people.
The FBI did it to themselves. No use blaming others.
Colluding with democrats and commies makes an agency untrustworthy.
The law is very clear as to what prohibits a person from owning and purchasing a firearm, and 'tips to the FBI' are not among them.
All I was saying is that its missing in this very complete and cogent indictment of the FBI’s recent dereliction.
The LV thing is an unbelievable mess.
No, the FBI shoulda ID’d and investigated him from the tips (after all the FBI has apparently volunteered as America’s Premier Investigative agency to find and fix people presenting a domestic threat).
I don’t think the FBI is the proper authority to separate this guy from society, but they volunteered. And failed.
The FBI are responsible for running a sort of “Watch List” to keep some people from buying guns. Watch Lists seem to be generally failures in preventing violence. This is just another example.
It is indeed. It is very clearly a cover-up, in fact, by the FBI.
The local police can bust the creeps for drugs. Most of those on pscyhoactive drugs are smoking pot. Prohibited person. Problem solved.
But they won’t do it. They’re too lazy to watch for and list their associates and are more concerned about keeping their jobs than arresting the untouchable brats of parents who spoil them.
Firearms tracing has nothing to do with this case. And it is exceedingly rare it provides ANY meaningful evidence after a crime either. Also, firearms tracing is useless without universal registration, and if a stolen gun is used.
It is a big deal in many hit movies though.
The issue is that his information as being in and out of mental institutions, and a background of violence and threats did not even come up when they ran his background.
“but they volunteered. And failed.”
I don’t know if “volunteered” is exactly the way it works, but failed they certainly have.
Actually, the word “failed” may be too mild. Maybe, “joined the forces of evil...”
Thank you! The FBI needs to be exorcised.
Thanks for posting LIConFem. Your point compliments the following, recently posted material.
A possibly major constitutional problem with FBI and federal interference in the sovereign state affairs is following imo.
Let's first consider that the Founding States had famously drafted the 1st Amendment (1A) to prohibit Congress from making laws related to our basic personal constitutional protections.
But have patriots considered that the 14th Amendment (14A) changed the prohibited laws aspect of 1A so that Congress can now make religion-related laws for example, as long as such laws reasonably strengthen constitutionally enumerated rights against abridgment by the states?
"14th Amendment, Section 1: All persons born or naturalized in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States [emphasis added]; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.”
"14th Amendment, Section 5: The Congress shall have power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article."
Bearing the idea of Congress now being able to strengthen enumerated rights in mind, also consider that the congressional record shows that constitutional lawmaker Rep. John Bingham had clarified now-forgotten limits on Congress's powers concerning state sovereignty.
More specifically, not only had Bingham, the main author of 14A's Section 1, reminded us that the Founding States had given the care of the people uniquely to the states, not the feds, but he had also emphasized the following.
War-time issues aside, the Founding States never expressly constitutionally delegated to feds the specific power to make penal code for the states.
Think about that. There feds originally had no express constitutional power to make INTRAstate penal code.
”... the care of the property, the liberty, and the life of the citizen, under the solemn sanction of an oath imposed by your Federal Constitution, is in the States, and not in the Federal Government [emphases added].” —Rep. John Bingham, Congressional Globe, 1866. (See about middle of 3rd column.)
"Our citizens have wisely formed themselves into one nation as to others and several States as among themselves. To the united nation belong our external and mutual relations; to each State, severally, the care of our persons, our property [emphasis added], our reputation and religious freedom.” —Thomas Jefferson: To Rhode Island Assembly, 1801.
"Our Constitution never conferred upon the Congress of the United States the power - sacred as life is, first as it is before all other rights which pertain to man on this side of the grave - to protect it in time of peace by the terrors of the penal code within organized states; and Congress has never attempted to do it. There never was a law upon the United States statute-book to punish the murderer for taking away in time of peace the life of the noblest, and the most unoffending, as well, of your citizens, within the limits of any State of the Union. The protection of the citizen in that respect was left to the respective States, and there the power is to-day [emphasis added]. I have sought to effect no change in that respect in the Constitution of the country. ” —Rep. John Bingham, Congressional Globe. (See bottom half of third column.)
But because 14A gave Congress the express power to strengthen rights that the states amend the constitution to expressly protect, the Bingham discussion also clarifies a basic change to the "Congress shall make no law" aspect of 1A.
"I have advocated here an amendment which would arm Congress with the power to compel obedience to that oath, and punish all violations by State officers of the bill of rights [sic], but leaving those officers to discharge the duties enjoined upon them as citizens of the United States by that oath and by that Constitution." —Rep. John Bingham, Congressional Globe. (See about middle of third column.)
In fact, the Supreme Court reflected on Congress's 14A power to strengthen constitutionally enumerated rights in Minor v. Happersett.
“3. The right of suffrage was not necessarily one of the privileges or immunities of citizenship before the adoption of the Fourteenth Amendment, and that amendment does not add to these privileges and immunities. It simply furnishes additional guaranty for the protection of such as the citizen already had [emphasis added].” —Minor v. Happersett, 1874.
So if patriots are curious about the kind of federal intrastate state penal laws that were in the books up to the time of the Civil War, there evidently were none. Corrections welcome.
And because of Bingham's clarification of the fed's constitutionally limited powers, I surmise that there were no federal gun laws outside the scope of the military-related clauses of Congress's constitutional Article I, Section 8-limited powers.
In fact, not only had Bingham clarified that the feds have no express constitutional authority to make penal laws concerning murder, it's disturbing that federal gun laws seem to have started appearing in the federal books only as late as the time of the FDR Administration, FDR and Congress of that time infamous for making laws that blatantly ignored the fed's constitutionally limited powers.
Franklin Roosevelt: The Father of Gun Control
Again, corrections, insights welcome.
Mentioned in related threads, note that a previous generation of state sovereignty-respecting Supreme Court justices had clarified that powers that the states haven't expressly constitutionally delegated to the feds are prohibited to the feds, fictitious federal power to regulate civilian-related firearms included.
10th Amendment: The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.
”From the accepted doctrine that the United States is a government of delegated powers, it follows that those not expressly granted, or reasonably to be implied from such as are conferred, are reserved to the states, or to the people. To forestall any suggestion to the contrary, the Tenth Amendment was adopted. The same proposition, otherwise stated, is that powers not granted are prohibited [emphasis added].” —United States v. Butler, 1936.
Again, the congressional record shows that constitutional lawmaker Bingham had clarified that the states had never given the feds the express constitutional power to make penal code laws until 14A was ratified, the feds now having the power only to strengthen rights, including 2nd Amendment protections, that the states amend the Constitution to expressly protect.
So what about federal penal laws based on the unconstitutional, post-17th Amendment (17A) ratification promises of corrupt federal politicians to get themselves elected, laws based on stolen state powers?
The bottom line concern imo is that possibly many people are wrongly in prison because they broke a federal penal law based on stolen state powers, as opposed to a penal law reasonably justifiable under 14A.
In other words, given the fed's constitutionally limited powers, the judicial system argument that being tried for the same offense in both federal and state courts is not a violation of the 5th Amendment is dangerously oversimplified imo.
More specifically, lawyers who defend alleged violators of federal laws need to be on their guard for federal laws based on stolen state powers.
The remedy to unconstitutionally big federal government …
First, we really need to repeal the ill-conceived 17th Amendment. It's given us too many headaches.
The 16th Amendment can disappear to.
Next, patriots are reminded that they need to finish the job that they started when they elected Trump president.
More specifically, patriots now need to be making sure that there are plenty of Trump-supporting, state sovereignty-respecting patriots on the 2018 primary ballots who would be willing to work with states to repeal 17A. Patriots can then pink-slip career lawmakers by sending patriot candidate lawmakers to DC on election day.
And until the states wake up and repeal 17A, as evidenced by concerns about the integrity of Alabama's special Senate election, patriot candidates need to win elections by a large enough margin to compensate for possible deep state ballot box fraud and associated MSM scare tactics.
Hacking Democracy - The Hack
My exercise was to show how firearms tracking actually works in the real world, in response to meatloaf saying:
Depending on whether the NCIS check was retained, there would have been a match with a firearms purchase.
My point being that there is no way to check a name against all guns purchased. Meatloaf has subsequently told me that he meant to point out that the FBI didn't find Cruz after the tips were given to them.
The issue is that his information as being in and out of mental institutions, and a background of violence and threats did not even come up when they ran his background.
This is the first that I've heard that Cruz has 'been in and out of mental institutions,' but even so, the form 4473 asks "Have you ever been adjudicated as a mental defective OR have you ever been committed to a mental institution?" And gives these instructions on how to answer the question:
"Adjudicated as a mental Defective: A determination by a court, board, commission, or other lawful authority that a person, as a result of marked subnormal intelligence, or mental illness, incompetency, condition, or disease: (1) is a danger to himself or to others; or (2) lacks the mental capacity to contract or manage his own affairs. This term shall include: (1) a finding of insanity by a court in a criminal case; and (2) those persons found incompetent to stand trial or found not guilty by reason of lack of mental responsibility."Committed to a Mental Institution: A formal commitment of a person to a mental institution by a court, board, commission or other lawful authority. The term includes a commitment to a mental institution involuntarily. The term includes commitment for mental defectiveness or mental illness. It also includes commitments for other reasons, such as for drug use. The term does not a person in a mental institution for observation or a voluntary admission to a mental institution."
Did any of those conditions apply to Cruz?
Does anyone expect a nutcase to give an honest answer to those questions? That in itself is crazy.
Time was that the FBI solved most of their cases by “acting on an anonymous tip”. Now they can’t even manage to do that.
Pathetic!
Everybody here is so wrong.
When the FBI got the first tip a year ago, they made contact and began grooming him then, got him the rifle. When the second tip came in they had to step up their game before another tip came trough.
This is what I believe of our Government.
BULL SH*T !
How about the Psycotropic drugs and shrinks these guys are all doing?
Gub mint psychs .
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.