Federal Carry Permit Proven

LonWilson · May 28, 2002, 12:16 PM

NEW CASE 5/28/02: Et tu, FEDS? An apparant case of a "crony honorary US Marshall" packin' in DC. For years, we've heard rumors of a "Federal CCW Permit", sometimes connected with the phrase "Honorary US Marshall". We know that Dianne Feinstein had a California CCW as Mayor (and prior, issued 1977 by San Francisco PD) and gave it up when she went to DC - despite still having a legal California residence. Why give up the California CCW? Rumors say it's because she scored national carry privileges in DC. Can I prove it? No, but now I can prove something similar is going on, via the strange case of Herb Bryant (summary on a police abuse expose website). I also have the official court transcript on the matter - as you can see, the Judge seemed to realize that once this guy's "crony carry privilege" proved embarassing to Federal law enforcement, they hung this dude out to dry.

http://www.ninehundred.com/~equalccw/expose.html#feds

http://www.sheeple.com/herd/marshal.html

Marko Kloos · May 28, 2002, 12:21 PM

Clinton made his drug czar Barry McCaffrey a honorary U.S.Marshal, just so General McCaffrey could pack a pistol in the District legally.

While I understand the General's desire to be able to control his own destiny, especially in a filthy and crime-ridden hellhole like D.C., I do get peeved about the attitude of "laws are for commoners".

Jim March · May 28, 2002, 07:12 PM

Somebody showed me this interesting document in response to the EMail broadcast Lon Wilson repeated:

http://www.usdoj.gov/olc/depmar.htm

So according to this, a lawyer told the agency to stop deputizing legicritters in 1994, citing the separation of powers and other issues.

First, it suggests this was happening before 1994, and we don't know if existing legicritters were grandfathered (or mothered, in DiFi's case?). Remember Congress holds the pursestrings - if you were a DOJ official, do you think it'd be a casual thing to yank DiFi's carry privileges?!?

Second, just because a lawyer told 'em to stop, doesn't mean they did! Nowhere here or linked to it is an actual policy statement - if I was the DOJ/Marshall's service and I wanted to make people THINK it was over when it wasn't, publishing this letter would be a masterstroke.

Third, this memo would allow "crony issuance" to, as mentioned, a "drug czar" or other cabinet member or anybody else on the "executive side".

Fourth, it also wouldn't halt issuance to private citizens such as Herb Bryant.

I'm also hearing rumors that a lot of bail bond recovery agents have this status. Somebody else thinks there's even a CCW class being run out of Quantico for this stuff. Lots of rumors, but by exchanging info on the subject the picture is getting a bit clearer.

SpyGuy · May 28, 2002, 07:51 PM

Quote:

Dianne Feinstein had a California CCW as Mayor (and prior, issued 1977 by San Francisco PD) and gave it up when she went to DC - despite still having a legal California residence. Why give up the California CCW? Rumors say it's because she scored national carry privileges in DC. Can I prove it? No

Isn't it possible to do a FOIA request on this type of info? If so, why isn't the NRA (or other well-funded, overly-lawyered, and politically-connected organizations) investigating this? (Could it be that the political connections are interferring with their objectivity?)

Also, I have often heard that Feinstein had a California CCW (as well as Barbara Boxer). Is there any proof other than hearsay? I would love to see copies of the official documents. We (Second Amendment supporters) really need to do a better job of researching and publicizing the hypocrisy of these gun-control statists.

KSFreeman · May 28, 2002, 08:40 PM

"Just because a lawyer told `em to stop, doesn't mean they did!"

Jim, that's the funniest thing you've posted that I've read. Thanks, I needed that laugh.

[pssst, it's still going on. If anyone in Indianapolis or Hammond is reading this, I denying typing it and don't know what Jim is talking about]

Jim March · May 28, 2002, 09:26 PM

SpyGuy: we agree completely on the need to document this crap. But rather than wait for "the NRA" to do it, I've been doing it myself. Have you SEEN some of the crap I'm finding and publishing?

http://www.ninehundred.com/~equalccw/expose.html

Pay particular attention to the stuff on San Francisco, Sacramento, Oakland and Don Perata. All that and a lot more is all the result of my filing California's version of the FOIA (known as a PRAR).

As to DiFi: I have the results of a PRAR request on CCW info for SFPD (2001), but old records were destroyed. I have spoken to people that did older requests where her name really was on the lists for SFPD permitholders, and there's been enough news media and similar reports on the subject, it's not something she can deny.

I have heard that efforts at doing FOIAs for lists of Honorary US Marshalls with carry rights have been rebuffed. Not surprising, given how they reacted to the embarassment in the Herb Bryant affair.

There are also persistent rumors that the Capitol police just flat ignore packin' by legicritters and even high-level staff.

KSFreeman · May 28, 2002, 09:32 PM

Not only DC/Capitol Police, but US Marshals in federal courthouses. Not that I go in federal courthouses or have any idea what Jim is talking about.

Jim March · May 29, 2002, 08:22 AM

I'm going to reproduce the contents of that DOJ page, in case it goes down or gets altered:

----------------

Original source: http://www.usdoj.gov/olc/depmar.htm

DEPUTIZATION OF MEMBERS OF CONGRESS
AS SPECIAL DEPUTY U.S. MARSHALS

The deputization of members of Congress as special Deputy U.S. Marshals is inconsistent with separation of powers principles and with the statutory language and historical practice governing special deputation.

May 25, 1994

MEMORANDUM FOR FRANCIS J. MARTIN
ACTING GENERAL COUNSEL
UNITED STATES MARSHALS SERVICE

You have requested our assistance in determining whether the United States Marshals Service may deputize members of Congress as special Deputy U.S. Marshals. The Director of the Marshals Service is authorized to deputize the following individuals to perform the functions of Deputy Marshals: selected officers or employees of the Department of Justice; federal, state or local law enforcement officers; private security personnel to provide courtroom security for the Federal judiciary; and other persons designated by the Associate Attorney General. 28 C.F.R. § 0.112; see also 28 U.S.C. § 561(f) (authorizing Director of Marshals Service to appoint "such employees as are necessary to carry out the powers and duties of the Service").

We believe that deputation of members of Congress is inconsistent with separation of powers principles and with the statutory language and historical practice governing special deputation.(1) First, deputizing members of Congress violates the principle recognized in Bowsher v. Synar, 478 U.S. 714 (1986), that Congress may not exceed its constitutionally prescribed authority by playing a direct role in executing the laws. The Marshals Service is clearly a part of the executive branch(2) and the primary duties of Deputy Marshals are the execution and enforcement of federal law. See Steele v. United States, 267 U.S. 505, 508 (1925) (deputy marshals are "chiefly charged with the enforcement of the peace of the United States"); United States v. Krapf, 285 F.2d 647, 649 (3rd Cir. 1960) (duties of marshals include the "enforcement, maintenance and administration of the federal authority"); 28 U.S.C. § 566 (describing the duties of the Marshals Service). Permitting members of Congress to execute and enforce the laws encroaches upon the very heart of the executive authority and violates one of the fundamental tenets of separation of powers jurisprudence: "[t]he structure of the Constitution does not permit Congress to execute the laws . . . ." Bowsher v. Synar, 478 U.S. 714, 726 (1986).

Members of Congress presumably request special deputation so that they may carry weapons for personal security and not so that they may actually execute or enforce the law. Nonetheless, deputized members of Congress will have statutory authority to enforce the law. Moreover, the fact that a legislative usurpation of executive power may prove to be innocuous or inchoate does not mean that it is constitutionally permissible. Legislative intrusions into the executive sphere that may prove harmless in practice nonetheless violate separation of powers principles. See Metropolitan Washington Airports Authority v. Citizens for the Abatement of Aircraft Noise, 111 S.Ct. 2298 (1991); Bowsher v. Synar, 478 U.S. 714 (1986). "The separated powers of our Government cannot be permitted to turn on" speculative assessments about the likelihood of a legislative official actually exercising usurped executive authority; "in the long term, structural protections against abuse of power [are] critical to preserving liberty." Bowsher, 478 U.S. at 730.

Deputation of members of Congress, furthermore, is not authorized by the statute and regulations governing special deputation. 28 U.S.C. § 561(f) states that the Director of the Marshals Service may appoint "such employees as are necessary to carry out the powers and duties of the Service . . ." (emphasis added). Similarly, 28 C.F.R. § 0.112 provides that the Director may deputize certain persons "to perform the functions of a Deputy U.S. Marshal." Both the Marshals Service and this Office have repeatedly taken the position that the use of the special deputation authority should be limited to those circumstances where the United States Marshal needs the deputations in order to accomplish his or her specific mission. See Memorandum for Rudolph W. Guiliani, Associate Attorney General, from Ralph W. Tarr, Deputy Assistant Attorney General, Office of Legal Counsel (March 18, 1983) (concluding that Marshals Service could not deputize Henry Kissinger's private security service); Memorandum to the Attorney General from John M. Harmon, Acting Assistant Attorney General, Office of Legal Counsel (March 28, 1977) (advising that it would be unlawful for the Marshals Service to deputize former Vice President Rockefeller's security detail). The Marshals Service does not need members of Congress to serve as deputy marshals in order to perform its assigned functions; indeed, members of Congress cannot perform the functions of the Marshals Service without running afoul of separation of powers principles.

It is therefore our conclusion that the Marshals Service cannot continue to grant requests from members of Congress for special deputation. Please let us know if we may be of any further assistance.
Walter Dellinger
Assistant Attorney General

1Because we think that the result is clear under a separation of powers analysis, we do not address the argument that special deputation of members of Congress is invalid under the Incompatibility Clause.

2The United States Marshals Service is a bureau within the Department of Justice and under the authority and direction of the Attorney General. 28 U.S.C. § 561.

Carry24x7 · May 29, 2002, 12:01 PM

You guys are gonna mess up this Special Deputy US Marshall thing for everybody!

Then what?

May 28, 2002, 12:16 PM	#1
LonWilson Senior Member Join Date: February 6, 2002 Location: Aloha, Oregon Posts: 759	Federal Carry Permit Proven NEW CASE 5/28/02: Et tu, FEDS? An apparant case of a "crony honorary US Marshall" packin' in DC. For years, we've heard rumors of a "Federal CCW Permit", sometimes connected with the phrase "Honorary US Marshall". We know that Dianne Feinstein had a California CCW as Mayor (and prior, issued 1977 by San Francisco PD) and gave it up when she went to DC - despite still having a legal California residence. Why give up the California CCW? Rumors say it's because she scored national carry privileges in DC. Can I prove it? No, but now I can prove something similar is going on, via the strange case of Herb Bryant (summary on a police abuse expose website). I also have the official court transcript on the matter - as you can see, the Judge seemed to realize that once this guy's "crony carry privilege" proved embarassing to Federal law enforcement, they hung this dude out to dry. http://www.ninehundred.com/~equalccw/expose.html#feds http://www.sheeple.com/herd/marshal.html

May 28, 2002, 12:21 PM	#2
Marko Kloos Senior Member Join Date: January 12, 2000 Location: Enfield, NH Posts: 5,521	Clinton made his drug czar Barry McCaffrey a honorary U.S.Marshal, just so General McCaffrey could pack a pistol in the District legally. While I understand the General's desire to be able to control his own destiny, especially in a filthy and crime-ridden hellhole like D.C., I do get peeved about the attitude of "laws are for commoners". __________________ "The right to buy weapons is the right to be free." --A.E. Van Vogt, The Weapon Shops of Isher the munchkin wrangler.

May 28, 2002, 07:12 PM	#3
Jim March Senior Member Join Date: February 14, 1999 Location: Pittsburg, CA, USA Posts: 7,417	Somebody showed me this interesting document in response to the EMail broadcast Lon Wilson repeated: http://www.usdoj.gov/olc/depmar.htm So according to this, a lawyer told the agency to stop deputizing legicritters in 1994, citing the separation of powers and other issues. First, it suggests this was happening before 1994, and we don't know if existing legicritters were grandfathered (or mothered, in DiFi's case?). Remember Congress holds the pursestrings - if you were a DOJ official, do you think it'd be a casual thing to yank DiFi's carry privileges?!? Second, just because a lawyer told 'em to stop, doesn't mean they did! Nowhere here or linked to it is an actual policy statement - if I was the DOJ/Marshall's service and I wanted to make people THINK it was over when it wasn't, publishing this letter would be a masterstroke. Third, this memo would allow "crony issuance" to, as mentioned, a "drug czar" or other cabinet member or anybody else on the "executive side". Fourth, it also wouldn't halt issuance to private citizens such as Herb Bryant. I'm also hearing rumors that a lot of bail bond recovery agents have this status. Somebody else thinks there's even a CCW class being run out of Quantico for this stuff. Lots of rumors, but by exchanging info on the subject the picture is getting a bit clearer. __________________ Jim March

May 28, 2002, 08:40 PM	#5
KSFreeman Senior Member Join Date: June 9, 2001 Location: Lafayette, Indiana--American-occupied America Posts: 5,418	"Just because a lawyer told `em to stop, doesn't mean they did!" Jim, that's the funniest thing you've posted that I've read. Thanks, I needed that laugh. [pssst, it's still going on. If anyone in Indianapolis or Hammond is reading this, I denying typing it and don't know what Jim is talking about] __________________ "Arguments of policy must give way to a constitutional command." Payton v. New York, 445 U.S. 573, 602 (1980).

May 28, 2002, 09:26 PM	#6
Jim March Senior Member Join Date: February 14, 1999 Location: Pittsburg, CA, USA Posts: 7,417	SpyGuy: we agree completely on the need to document this crap. But rather than wait for "the NRA" to do it, I've been doing it myself. Have you SEEN some of the crap I'm finding and publishing? http://www.ninehundred.com/~equalccw/expose.html Pay particular attention to the stuff on San Francisco, Sacramento, Oakland and Don Perata. All that and a lot more is all the result of my filing California's version of the FOIA (known as a PRAR). As to DiFi: I have the results of a PRAR request on CCW info for SFPD (2001), but old records were destroyed. I have spoken to people that did older requests where her name really was on the lists for SFPD permitholders, and there's been enough news media and similar reports on the subject, it's not something she can deny. I have heard that efforts at doing FOIAs for lists of Honorary US Marshalls with carry rights have been rebuffed. Not surprising, given how they reacted to the embarassment in the Herb Bryant affair. There are also persistent rumors that the Capitol police just flat ignore packin' by legicritters and even high-level staff. __________________ Jim March

May 28, 2002, 09:32 PM	#7
KSFreeman Senior Member Join Date: June 9, 2001 Location: Lafayette, Indiana--American-occupied America Posts: 5,418	Not only DC/Capitol Police, but US Marshals in federal courthouses. Not that I go in federal courthouses or have any idea what Jim is talking about. __________________ "Arguments of policy must give way to a constitutional command." Payton v. New York, 445 U.S. 573, 602 (1980).

May 29, 2002, 08:22 AM	#8
Jim March Senior Member Join Date: February 14, 1999 Location: Pittsburg, CA, USA Posts: 7,417	I'm going to reproduce the contents of that DOJ page, in case it goes down or gets altered: ---------------- Original source: http://www.usdoj.gov/olc/depmar.htm DEPUTIZATION OF MEMBERS OF CONGRESS AS SPECIAL DEPUTY U.S. MARSHALS The deputization of members of Congress as special Deputy U.S. Marshals is inconsistent with separation of powers principles and with the statutory language and historical practice governing special deputation. May 25, 1994 MEMORANDUM FOR FRANCIS J. MARTIN ACTING GENERAL COUNSEL UNITED STATES MARSHALS SERVICE You have requested our assistance in determining whether the United States Marshals Service may deputize members of Congress as special Deputy U.S. Marshals. The Director of the Marshals Service is authorized to deputize the following individuals to perform the functions of Deputy Marshals: selected officers or employees of the Department of Justice; federal, state or local law enforcement officers; private security personnel to provide courtroom security for the Federal judiciary; and other persons designated by the Associate Attorney General. 28 C.F.R. § 0.112; see also 28 U.S.C. § 561(f) (authorizing Director of Marshals Service to appoint "such employees as are necessary to carry out the powers and duties of the Service"). We believe that deputation of members of Congress is inconsistent with separation of powers principles and with the statutory language and historical practice governing special deputation.(1) First, deputizing members of Congress violates the principle recognized in Bowsher v. Synar, 478 U.S. 714 (1986), that Congress may not exceed its constitutionally prescribed authority by playing a direct role in executing the laws. The Marshals Service is clearly a part of the executive branch(2) and the primary duties of Deputy Marshals are the execution and enforcement of federal law. See Steele v. United States, 267 U.S. 505, 508 (1925) (deputy marshals are "chiefly charged with the enforcement of the peace of the United States"); United States v. Krapf, 285 F.2d 647, 649 (3rd Cir. 1960) (duties of marshals include the "enforcement, maintenance and administration of the federal authority"); 28 U.S.C. § 566 (describing the duties of the Marshals Service). Permitting members of Congress to execute and enforce the laws encroaches upon the very heart of the executive authority and violates one of the fundamental tenets of separation of powers jurisprudence: "[t]he structure of the Constitution does not permit Congress to execute the laws . . . ." Bowsher v. Synar, 478 U.S. 714, 726 (1986). Members of Congress presumably request special deputation so that they may carry weapons for personal security and not so that they may actually execute or enforce the law. Nonetheless, deputized members of Congress will have statutory authority to enforce the law. Moreover, the fact that a legislative usurpation of executive power may prove to be innocuous or inchoate does not mean that it is constitutionally permissible. Legislative intrusions into the executive sphere that may prove harmless in practice nonetheless violate separation of powers principles. See Metropolitan Washington Airports Authority v. Citizens for the Abatement of Aircraft Noise, 111 S.Ct. 2298 (1991); Bowsher v. Synar, 478 U.S. 714 (1986). "The separated powers of our Government cannot be permitted to turn on" speculative assessments about the likelihood of a legislative official actually exercising usurped executive authority; "in the long term, structural protections against abuse of power [are] critical to preserving liberty." Bowsher, 478 U.S. at 730. Deputation of members of Congress, furthermore, is not authorized by the statute and regulations governing special deputation. 28 U.S.C. § 561(f) states that the Director of the Marshals Service may appoint "such employees as are necessary to carry out the powers and duties of the Service . . ." (emphasis added). Similarly, 28 C.F.R. § 0.112 provides that the Director may deputize certain persons "to perform the functions of a Deputy U.S. Marshal." Both the Marshals Service and this Office have repeatedly taken the position that the use of the special deputation authority should be limited to those circumstances where the United States Marshal needs the deputations in order to accomplish his or her specific mission. See Memorandum for Rudolph W. Guiliani, Associate Attorney General, from Ralph W. Tarr, Deputy Assistant Attorney General, Office of Legal Counsel (March 18, 1983) (concluding that Marshals Service could not deputize Henry Kissinger's private security service); Memorandum to the Attorney General from John M. Harmon, Acting Assistant Attorney General, Office of Legal Counsel (March 28, 1977) (advising that it would be unlawful for the Marshals Service to deputize former Vice President Rockefeller's security detail). The Marshals Service does not need members of Congress to serve as deputy marshals in order to perform its assigned functions; indeed, members of Congress cannot perform the functions of the Marshals Service without running afoul of separation of powers principles. It is therefore our conclusion that the Marshals Service cannot continue to grant requests from members of Congress for special deputation. Please let us know if we may be of any further assistance. Walter Dellinger Assistant Attorney General 1Because we think that the result is clear under a separation of powers analysis, we do not address the argument that special deputation of members of Congress is invalid under the Incompatibility Clause. 2The United States Marshals Service is a bureau within the Department of Justice and under the authority and direction of the Attorney General. 28 U.S.C. § 561. __________________ Jim March

May 29, 2002, 12:01 PM	#9
Carry24x7 Junior member Join Date: March 18, 2002 Location: Florida Posts: 196	You guys are gonna mess up this Special Deputy US Marshall thing for everybody! Then what?