Excessive Rules and Regulations Anyone? Excessive Police Powers?

This is a discussion on Excessive Rules and Regulations Anyone? Excessive Police Powers? within the Law Enforcement, Military & Homeland Security Discussion forums, part of the Related Topics category; Many of us have expressed varied opinions regarding more government intrusions in our lives or more business regulations. This trend has been ongoing since government ...

Page 1 of 4 1234 LastLast
Results 1 to 15 of 60
Like Tree33Likes

Thread: Excessive Rules and Regulations Anyone? Excessive Police Powers?

  1. #1
    Moderator
    Array Rock and Glock's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Location
    Colorado at 11,650'
    Posts
    12,382

    Exclamation Excessive Rules and Regulations Anyone? Excessive Police Powers?

    Many of us have expressed varied opinions regarding more government intrusions in our lives or more business regulations. This trend has been ongoing since government was "invented" so to speak, but I found this article in the Wall Street Journal very interesting.

    For years, the public face of federal law enforcement has been the Federal Bureau of Investigation. Today, for many people, the knock on the door is increasingly likely to come from a dizzying array of other police forces tucked away inside lesser-known crime-fighting agencies.
    Federal Offenses: Law-Enforcement Teams Grow at U.S. Government Agencies - WSJ.com

    Some of the charts and graphs are very telling:



    Obviously, Congress is the Beast creating all of this:

    In 1970, the Code of Federal Regulations had 54,000 pages. Today it runs to 165,000 pages and takes 27 feet of shelf space when printed and bound.
    The result of which can be frightening if one really considers the possible results (see the interactives on prosecutions).

    Often, Congress makes it a criminal offense to violate any part of a law it passes—including these regulations. As a result, as more criminal laws are passed, the number of regulations that can ensnare people grows as well.

    It is hard to pin down precisely how many regulations could result in criminal penalties. Of dozens of federal agencies contacted by The Wall Street Journal, none could say how many of their regulations were connected to criminal statutes. Legal experts have put this number at anywhere between 10,000 and 300,000.
    Not to be morose and cycnical, this reminds me of Kafka's The Trial:


    Parable told by the Priest

    BEFORE THE LAW stands a doorkeeper. To this doorkeeper there comes a man from the country and prays for admittance to the Law. But the doorkeeper says that he cannot grant admittance at the moment. The man thinks it over and then asks if he will be allowed in later. "It is possible," says the doorkeeper, "but not at the moment." Since the gate stands open, as usual, and the doorkeeper steps to one side, the man stoops to peer through the gateway into the interior. Observing that, the doorkeeper laughs and says: "If you are so drawn to it, just try to go in despite my veto. But take note: I am powerful. And I am only the least of the doorkeepers. From hall to hall there is one doorkeeper after another, each more powerful than the last. The third doorkeeper is already so terrible that even I cannot bear to look at him." These are difficulties the man from the country has not expected; the Law, he thinks, should surely be accessible at all times and to everyone, but as he now takes a closer look at the doorkeeper in his fur coat, with his big sharp nose and long, thin, black Tartar beard, he decides that it is better to wait until he gets permission to enter. The doorkeeper gives him a stool and lets him sit down at one side of the door. There he sits for days and years. He makes many attempts to be admitted, and wearies the doorkeeper by his importunity. The doorkeeper frequently has little interviews with him, asking him questions about his home and many other things, but the questions are put indifferently, as great lords put them, and always finish with the statement that he cannot be let in yet. The man, who has furnished himself with many things for his journey, sacrifices all he has, however valuable, to bribe the doorkeeper. The doorkeeper accepts everything, but always with the remark: "I am only taking it to keep you from thinking you have omitted anything." During these many years the man fixes his attention almost continuously on the doorkeeper. He forgets the other doorkeepers, and this first one seems to him the sole obstacle preventing access to the Law. He curses his bad luck, in his early years boldly and loudly; later, as he grows old, he only grumbles to himself. He becomes childish, and since in his yearlong contemplation of the doorkeeper he has come to know even the fleas in his fur collar, he begs the fleas as well to help him and to change the doorkeeper’s mind. At length his eyesight begins to fail, and he does not know whether the world is really darker or whether his eyes are only deceiving him. Yet in his darkness he is now aware of a radiance that streams inextinguishably from the gateway of the Law. Now he has not very long to live. Before he dies, all his experiences in these long years gather themselves in his head to one point, a question he has not yet asked the doorkeeper. He waves him nearer, since he can no longer raise his stiffening body. The doorkeeper has to bend low toward him, for the difference in height between them has altered much to the man’s disadvantage. "What do you want to know now?" asks the doorkeeper; "you are insatiable." "Everyone strives to reach the Law," says the man, "so how does it happen that for all these many years no one but myself has ever begged for admittance?" The doorkeeper recognizes that the man has reached his end, and, to let his failing senses catch the words, roars in his ear: "No one else could ever be admitted here, since this gate was made only for you. I am now going to shut it."


  2. Remove Ads

  3. #2
    Member Array Eaglebeak's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2011
    Location
    Republic Of Texas
    Posts
    367
    I don't think there's any argument that "Big Brother" is getting bigger and intruding deeper into everyone's lives and freedoms with each passing day. Once again, "government of the people, for the people, and by the people" has now become "government over the people, around the people, and up the people". The problem that scares me the most is that I'm not sure there's anything we can do to reverse the trend.

    Many years ago, there was a time in this country when laws and policies were the fruit of the ballot box instead of being dictated by the supreme court and/or pursuant to successful lawsuits brought against almost every part of the Constitution itself by well-funded, radical liberal, socialist groups. Back then, the working, taxpaying citizens were the vast majority who could responsibly dictate legislation that was in the nation's best interests while concurrently preserving individual freedoms and minimizing federal control over particular policies and choices that were better determined by the states or individual citizens themselves.

    Unfortunately, the taxpaying voters who work for a living in this country are becoming a minority to the vast numbers of non-working social parasites who vote for a living and will blindly line up behind any socialist cause that promises even more "free lunches" than they're already getting. Now that socialist welfare-state policies continue expanding to encompass illegals as well, it's created a larger number of bottom-feeding social parasites than working hosts to support them.

    Sooner or later, too many parasites will eventually kill the host; and since the parasites and radical socialists now seem to control both the ballot box and the court system, I'm open for any realistic suggestions that us "hosts" can do to turn things around again - instead of helplessly sitting by and watching this once great country be methodically taken down from within.
    WD54241 and GoPackman like this.

  4. #3
    VIP Member
    Array OldVet's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Location
    S. Florida, north of the Miami mess, south of the Mouse trap
    Posts
    16,151
    Perhaps they should combine all Federal LE agencies under one roof, the National Police, operating under one set of rules. No more HS, DEA, ATF, FBI, US Marshalls, Border Patrol, etc.
    Retired USAF E-8. Lighten up and enjoy life because:
    Paranoia strikes deep, into your heart it will creep. It starts when you're always afraid... "For What It's Worth" Buffalo Springfield

  5. #4
    Ex Member Array gunther71's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Location
    greenville
    Posts
    159
    Just like the old rumors of getting rid of the 5 military branches and putting them all under the Army.

    Aint never gonna happen.

    When the government gains control and takes away our gun rights.. I hope gun owners dont surrender thier firearms and become sheep.

  6. #5
    VIP Member Array mlr1m's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Location
    okla
    Posts
    4,298
    For years, the public face of federal law enforcement has been the Federal Bureau of Investigation. Today, for many people, the knock on the door is increasingly likely to come from a dizzying array of other police forces tucked away inside lesser-known crime-fighting agencies.
    This is a subject that I have written about many times in correspondence with my elected officials. I have pointed out to them how in my opinion it is dangerous to give regulatory agencies police powers of any kind. This is something the Founders of this country were careful to do when they set this Government up. They separated those creating the Laws and rules from those enforcing them. The Legislative branch creates and the Executive branch enforces.

    We do not give the FBI the power to create laws or regulations. Can you imagine the uproar if we did? Do we want the State police to write the laws, or do we want those we elect to do it?
    Yet we give other agencies the power to create rules and regulations and then grant them police powers to enforce them.

    The BATFE for example. They should either be a rule making agency or an enforcement agency. Not both. Same for any other regulatory agency.

    Michael

  7. #6
    Member Array gunsnroses's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Location
    America
    Posts
    422
    Quote Originally Posted by gunther71 View Post
    Just like the old rumors of getting rid of the 5 military branches and putting them all under the Army.

    Aint never gonna happen.

    When the government gains control and takes away our gun rights.. I hope gun owners dont surrender thier firearms and become sheep.
    It goes far and beyond just gun rights and if thats all that people are worried about, then they have become the sheep you talk about.
    Hopyard and glockman10mm like this.

  8. #7
    Moderator
    Array Rock and Glock's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Location
    Colorado at 11,650'
    Posts
    12,382
    This is a subject that I have written about many times in correspondence with my elected officials. I have pointed out to them how in my opinion it is dangerous to give regulatory agencies police powers of any kind. This is something the Founders of this country were careful to do when they set this Government up.
    I agree completely. I find this terribly unnerving and disconcerting. Consider the following:

    Federal Offenses: Sewage Blunder Earns Building Engineer a Criminal Record - WSJ.com


    "I got a criminal record from my job—when I thought I was doing the right thing?" says Mr. Lewis, 60 years old.

    Mr. Lewis was caught in Washington's four-decade expansion of federal criminal law. Today, there are an estimated 4,500 federal crimes on the books, a significant increase from the three in the Constitution (treason, piracy and counterfeiting). There is an additional, and much larger, number of regulations written to enforce the laws. One of those regulations ensnared Mr. Lewis.

    "You have a large community of people who are not considered criminals in the traditional sense," living with the consequences "for the rest of their lives," says Lisa Wayne, president of the National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers.

    Applications for jobs, loans and occupational licenses—ranging from auctioneers to plumbers—ask about a person's criminal history. While a conviction is rarely an automatic disqualification, it can often tip the balance against an applicant, observers say.

    A misdemeanor conviction can restrict international travel and make joining the military harder. It "can be disqualifying" for anyone seeking federal employment, "though the decision is made on a case-by-case basis depending upon a number of factors," says Angela Bailey of the U.S. Office of Personnel Management.

    On probation, Mr. Lewis had to fill out monthly cash-flow statements showing his salary and spending to prove he wasn't involved in any unusual activities. He had to hand over his .357-caliber revolver to a family member for the duration of his probation.
    The above case is just depressing, when a good man gets railroaded by a bunch of bureaucratic jerks in an Agency. Then to boot, he's jerked around by a whole new bureaucracy during his probation.

    There is way to much power in the Agencies.

  9. #8
    Ex Member Array Yankeejib's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Location
    Tampa, FL
    Posts
    1,003
    It's too late.
    Magnum likes this.

  10. #9
    VIP Member
    Array gunthorp's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Location
    home office
    Posts
    2,355
    Without delay, ask all you know in the military and police to join the Oath Keepers. Don't bother with the TSA agents or Internment and relocation specialists in the National Guard.

    Oath Keepers: Oath Keepers: Orders We Will Not Obey
    Liberty, Property, or Death - Jonathan Gardner's powder horn inscription 1776

    Tu ne cede malis, sed contra audentior ito.
    ("Do not give in to evil but proceed ever more boldly against it.")
    -Virgil, Aeneid, vi, 95

  11. #10
    Member Array Con43's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    Nevada
    Posts
    33
    Quote Originally Posted by gunthorp View Post
    Without delay, ask all you know in the military and police to join the Oath Keepers. Don't bother with the TSA agents or Internment and relocation specialists in the National Guard.

    Oath Keepers: Oath Keepers: Orders We Will Not Obey

    Problem is a vast number of serving LEO's consider the Oath Keepers to be a somewhat questionable orginization from what I have read on a number of LEO sites and conversations with working LEO's. It seems when you are part of the powers that be it is real hard to see the other guy's position when it conflicts with yours or your job security.

    Perhaps they should combine all Federal LE agencies under one roof, the National Police, operating under one set of rules. No more HS, DEA, ATF, FBI, US Marshalls, Border Patrol, etc.

    I believe this has been tried before in other countries. It seemed to work well for the "National Police" but the people seem to of had a rough road to hoe JMO....

  12. #11
    VIP Member
    Array Hopyard's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Disappeared
    Posts
    11,634
    Quote Originally Posted by Rock and Glock View Post
    I agree completely. I find this terribly unnerving and disconcerting. Consider the following:

    Federal Offenses: Sewage Blunder Earns Building Engineer a Criminal Record - WSJ.com
    I read an interesting commentary on this case. The author of the commentary suggested (I have no idea if this is true or not) that under Federal law the prosecutor doesn't have to show "mens rea" (a guilty mind). That is you can blindly break the law without any intention but still you broke the law and so you are guilty.

    @ R&G--- I don't know how you tax gurus can stand to operate in that environment.

    I don't think there is a good answer to this difficulty. Every one of these things is there because some entity did something wrong; or it was necessary to pass legislation to prevent some entity from doing wrong.
    If the Union is once severed, the line of separation will grow wider and wider, and the controversies which are now debated and settled in the halls of legislation will then be tried in fields of battle and determined by the sword.
    Andrew Jackson

  13. #12
    Senior Moderator
    Array HotGuns's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Location
    Arkansas
    Posts
    14,868
    Every one of these things is there because some entity did something wrong; or it was necessary to pass legislation to prevent some entity from doing wrong.
    Passing legislation to "prevent something"is only for weak minded men seeking power that they would never otherwise have.



    That is exactly the problem. Moral men dont need a law to tell them how to act.
    Laws do not prevent anyone from doing anything...they simply detail a punishment for doing so.


    If all the laws against murder actually prevented it, there would be no murder.


    Clearly, that is not the case.
    gunsnroses likes this.
    I would rather stand against the cannons of the wicked than against the prayers of the righteous.


    AR. CHL Instr. 07/02 FFL
    Like custom guns and stuff? Check this out...
    http://bobbailey1959.wordpress.com/

  14. #13
    VIP Member Array rammerjammer's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    Omaha, Nebraska
    Posts
    3,415
    What's scary is that as Big Brother grows in size, the LEO's sworn to protect us will be the ones to take our liberties away.
    gunsnroses, Magnum and NYCrulesU like this.
    "Was there no end to the conspiracy of irrational prejudice against Red Ryder and his peacemaker?"

    Revolvers, “more elegant weapons for a more civilized age.”

  15. #14
    Senior Moderator
    Array HotGuns's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Location
    Arkansas
    Posts
    14,868
    What's scary is that as Big Brother grows in size, the LEO's sworn to protect us will be the ones to take our liberties away
    The stupid ones might.

    For the most part, I dont think so. I think it'll be something else.
    I would rather stand against the cannons of the wicked than against the prayers of the righteous.


    AR. CHL Instr. 07/02 FFL
    Like custom guns and stuff? Check this out...
    http://bobbailey1959.wordpress.com/

  16. #15
    VIP Member Array shockwave's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    Florida
    Posts
    2,037
    Behold the parade of churlishness!

    In fact, it's always been this way. Kafka, HL Mencken, many have commented in the distant past that if the authorities want to get you - they can. No man can pass a single day without breaking some law or another.

    Yet, you, me, and pretty much every member here has qualified for a rigorous background check and was issued a concealed carry permit. I've never been arrested nor been fined nor had any run-ins with any member of any law enforcement agency.

    And you know why? Because there really aren't that many laws you have to worry about.

    My line of business means I have to know a lot of what's in that 27-foot-long bookshelf containing the Code of Federal Regulations and, I'm sad to inform the Teabagging set here, just about none of it would ever impinge on your life in any way. Not unless you're trying to dispose of a 55-gallon drum of benzene, or manufacture an aileron, or install a gas line, or transport livestock, or do something similar that might adversely affect others' life and limb.

    Most of the CFRs deal with things that, well, you see in other countries they don't have that stuff. And ferries capsize and stuff blows up, and over in India and Russia and China you see lots of people die because crap wasn't up to code. You should be happy that we are an intelligent country with engineering standards.

    Sadly, far too many of you have been yammered at by Fox News or similar, and believe that "regulations" are some kind of awful dictatorship. Yet, in many surveys conducted by neutral parties, corporations have replied that no, they are not hampered by regulation at all. Oh, the Gibson guitar company got into trouble because they were using rare materials. Boo hoo hoo. They can use sustainable products and achieve better results.

    Remember always that it's Kerr McGee and similar large major polluters who want "regulations" rescinded so they can freely dump waste into our rivers, companies like McDonalds that want zero regulations on the treatment of livestock so they can deliver meat cheaper with fewer inspections. Nobody who is on your side argues for those things. Just the beancounters who want a fast buck at your expense.
    "It may seem difficult at first, but everything is difficult at first."

Page 1 of 4 1234 LastLast

Links

Posting Permissions

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

Search tags for this page

bd laws pic
,
best way to combat excessive police powers
,

excessive laws

,
excessive laws us
,

excessive police power

,

excessive rule of law

,

excessive rules

,
excessive use of rules to manage governmental affairs
,

for years, the public face of federal law enforcement has been the federal bureau of investigation. today, for many peop

,
homeland secutity police powers
,
on excessive legislation
,
powered by mybb office of personnel management federal
Click on a term to search for related topics.