ATF Agents Have Problems With Obesity

If this is true it is very “interesting”. The ATF was (is?) having difficultly maintaining staff for entry and quick reaction teams.


Many of them are obese and they are losing staff due to injuries from obesity, cardiovascular disease and parallel conditions.

Perhaps they should just shut the entire anti-gun operation down and stop infringing upon our rights.

Via a tweet from Chuck Petras @Chuck_Petras.

Prepare appropriately. Don’t let your dog get close enough to an ATF agent that the agent might fall on them.


13 thoughts on “ATF Agents Have Problems With Obesity

  1. It’s also nice to know they can be easily distracted by a pizza. Might save one’s life one day.

  2. Methinks it was written by a Nigerian Prince who couldn’t be bothered to sign his work; the language sounds a bit “off”.

    “onctradictory” Pretty sure spell check should catch that.

    The minimum weight allowed is 225? I’m more than qualified!

    • “Minimum 225 lbs” seems a bit sketchy to me. If they’re looking for door-kickers, I can’t think of anyone more qualified than a Marine who’s seen active duty in places like Fallujah, and they’re usually about 180 lbs or so — unless they’re 6’4″, in which case they’re about 220, and still below the minimum.

      (Not that many self-respecting Marines would want to be BATFE agents. I’m merely using them as an example that hiring managers shouldn’t use weight alone as a proxy for measuring physical skills and training.)

      I weigh less than 225, and according to BMI charts I’m “obese” for my height (which is average). If BATFE is requiring a 225-lb minimum, unless they’re exclusively seeking unusually-tall men, they’re basically stating obesity is a requirement. It’s no wonder they’re seeing all those problems*!

      * – Personally, I don’t see a BATFE policy that effectively requires physical non-fitness or “incentivis[es] our physically fit, competent agents to resign” as a “problem”.

    • I interpret “pass/no pass 225 pounds” as a maximum weight, because it makes no sense at all as a minimum. But with no adjustment for height, this allows men under 6 foot to get rather fat, short men to be very fat, and let’s not even think about the women.

      On the other hand, it does not allow men to be both tall and strong. I’m pretty sure that the 6’5″ athlete and actor Chuck Connors would have been well over 225 at the time he was playing both baseball and basketball professionally, as well as later when he was co-starring with a modified Winchester 1892 in “The Rifleman”.

      I’d be sure this letter was a fabrication, except that ATF management has so often showed themselves as utterly stupid and incompetent in other ways. Calling them clowns is an insult to circus performers.

    • ‘Methinks it was written by a Nigerian Prince who couldn’t be bothered to sign his work; the language sounds a bit “off”.’

      I’m thinking that memo is a product of an affirmative-action hire, trying to sound like a cop.

  3. Nice to know I can prevent BATFE access to my property with narrow doors and trip wires. (As in, literal, “3 Stooges”-style tripping hazards.)

  4. hopefully they all got all their wuhan flu shot and will shortly begin to experience the multitudinous side effects, heh, heh, heh. . .

    • Every gun owner is a suspect.

      I have even heard, many years ago, it argued that if carrying guns were legal, then law enforcement would not be able to distinguish good guys from bad guys.

  5. “…if carrying guns were legal, then law enforcement would not be able to distinguish good guys from bad guys. “

    They’re not all that good at that even when no one is carrying guns.

    Actually, it seems that prior to 1987 – when Florida’s CWP law that began changing the entire environment was passed – “carrying a gun” was a reliable marker for being a “bad guy” (think on that for a minute, it’ll come to you). Now, only some of the “bad guys” carry guns, the rest of us are “just citizens.”

    Hopefully, we’re only one or two SCOTUS decisions away from becoming “just citizens with full Constitutional rights.”

    • Until and unless SCOTUS starts clearly and broadly answering the questions before it, it will take a lot more than one or two decisions.

      SCOTUS answers the question posed … and nothing else. I’m not saying this is necessarily a bad thing, but they also tend to use ultra-specific analyses, avoid reasoning outside the scope of the exact question, and sometimes even say what additional questions they’re not answering. When we don’t get comprehensive answers, the antis focus on what SCOTUS decisions don’t say, and write laws and legal opinions in those gray, unanswered areas.

      After Heller, which confirmed the 2nd Amendment is an individual right (not a collective right dependent on militia enrollment and service), states passed laws that the federal government couldn’t under Heller, and some anti-gun courts reasoned that because SCOTUS did NOT say that the 14th Amendment incorporates the 2nd to the states, that states could pass whatever they want. It took another SCOTUS opinion — McDonald v. Chicago in 2010 — to quash that notion and say, no, the 14th Amendment binds the states to the same Constitutional restrictions as the feds.

      Now that Bruen affirms that the lawful bearing of arms is presumptively protected by the 2nd Amendment (a question Heller mentioned but declined to answer), anti-gun states are questioning who are “the People” the 2nd Amendment mentions, and what constitutes “bearable Arms”. Those should be obvious from a plain-text reading, but because that exact question has never been brought before the the courts, SCOTUS has never answered it, so the antis are weasel-wording around those phrases. (Actually, Bruen answered the one about “the People”, but the antis are flatly ignoring that line and acting like it’s a fresh new question.)

      Bottom line: We need SCOTUS to issue comprehensive reasoning and decisions when they affirm Constitutional rights … or at the very least, we need their decisions to avoid raising — but declining to answer — more questions the antis can then use as loopholes.

      And part of me would love to see a Constitutional Amendment that grants SCOTUS the power to hold in contempt and disqualify District Court judges that flaunt or ignore their decisions. But another part of me thinks that could get misused and abused in the future and so it’s not a good idea.

Comments are closed.