[Bubbles]

Long read...

Explosives Branch Slammed (http://www.usdoj.gov/oig/inspection/ATF/e0505/final.pdf)

[hammer4nc]

Thanks for posting. I just skimmed the report, I fear that the response to this will be increasingly thuggish beahvior (get tough policy; more funding, more power, rather than the obvious solution: disband the agency ). Nowhere do I see criticism for misplaced priorities - the obvious failing common to big LE agencies. For example, the countless man-hours spent chasing threaded barrels , arguably "improperly" de-milled receivers, & other chinese firedrills that serve no purpose, other than to harass.

Our resident ATF shill is sure to weigh in on this...what, is he now going to accuse the USDOJ of being cop bashers, for insulting his fine, upstanding "friends"? :what:

[Bear Gulch]

I'd like to see this function incorporated into FBI, but that's just me. I also fear that any agency can become adversarial towards citizens. That being said, my experiences with ATF have been positive.

[Third_Rail]

I love explosives... can't wait to turn 21 and get a license for them! :D

[Deavis]

Our resident ATF shill is sure to weigh in on this...what, is he now going to accuse the USDOJ of being cop bashers, for insulting his fine, upstanding "friends"?

Hey, his opinion is just as valid as yours. The fact is that he views the BATFE and its job in a different light than you.

What you call chinese firedrills are violations of the law. Simple as that.It is their job to prosecute people who violate the law. This is no different than complaining about a ticket you receive for going 80mph on a deserted 5 lane freeway at 6am when the weather is perfect. Is it stupid? Probably, but it is the law and you can't blame the officer for doing his job. There will be those who support the 55mph limit even though it no longer makes sense for most drivers/vehicles on the freeways.

Write your Congresscritter and get the law/scope of the ATF changed if you don't like it.

[Control Group]

Deavis, while writing your representatives and asking for legislative restrictions placed on federal agencies is a good idea, it's not entirely accurate to say that the BATF is "just enforcing the laws." The laws as they stand grant authority to the BATF, as part of the DoJ, to regulate firearms within the limits set by law, and meeting the standards required by law. This means they get to write the regulations they enforce, and those regulations will have the power of law. Regulations, however, are not in themselves law, insofar as they were never seen in either legislative house, or ever voted on by any of our representatives. They are not amendments to USC, they are part of the body of the CFR, or Code of Federal Regulations.

(This, of course, is not unique to the BATF, it's the way every federal regulatory agency works: FCC, FDA, SEC, OSHA, ETC, ETC, ETC)

So it's not legitimate to release the BATF from all responsibility over what they choose to enforce or not, since they're the ones both making the rules and enforcing them under the authority granted them by law. This is not at all like a police officer ticketing you for speeding. He has no authority to set speed limits, he must abide by the posted limit, like it or not. To some extent, obviously, the BATF's hands are tied - they have to enforce the NFA, they had to enforce the AWB, and so forth. But that doesn't mean they get a pass on how they enforce the law, and what regulations they develop to enforce the law.

You're right, however, insofar as the correct way to deal with the BATF is to convince the Congress to legislatively reign in the extent of the BATF's authority.

[Deavis]

This is not at all like a police officer ticketing you for speeding. He has no authority to set speed limits, he must abide by the posted limit, like it or not

No, it is still in the same spirit. The officer doesn't have to enforce the speed limit if he doesn't want to or he can give you a warning. That individual officer chooses what he wants to regulate based on the laws in front of him, just like the ATF does. Although, I admit that the ATF getting to classify items to fit the law, i.e. a semi auto AR-15 with a single M-16 control part is a machine gun, is a bit over the top from the spirit of the law.

I completely concur with what you are saying and I should have been more concise. Just saying that changing the law/scope of the ATF was minimalist. They, obviously, have a ton of leeway to decide ho to pursue cases and reigning them in from the, as we see it, useless things would be great.

[flatrock]

Nowhere do I see criticism for misplaced priorities - the obvious failing common to big LE agencies. For example, the countless man-hours spent chasing threaded barrels , arguably "improperly" de-milled receivers, & other chinese firedrills that serve no purpose, other than to harass.

While there's likely plenty of reason to be critical of the ATF in those areas, this report is related only to the explosives division. You're not going to see critisms of the other divisions, because that's outside the scope of the report.

Thanks for posting. I just skimmed the report, I fear that the response to this will be increasingly thuggish beahvior (get tough policy; more funding, more power, rather than the obvious solution: disband the agency ).

They already have all the power and authority they need to do this job. They simply aren't doing it. It also appears that they aren't overseeing their employees properly and some of them are using the system to illegally do background checks on people who are not applying to access explosives.

This report pretty clearly shows incompetent management and improper oversight. It points out things like cases not being forwarded to field officies, which shows incompetence rather than insufficient funding to do the job.

The unofficial and illegal use of the NICS system will likely result in the FBI investigating that criminal activity, and that will likely result in some people losing their jobs. However, that won't fix the problem. The Explosives division obviously needs a change in management in order to do it's job properly.

I share your doubts that this will be used as a reason to disband the orginazation. The Explosives division has really isn't producing any results that can be shown to make us safer. This will be used as an excust to say that it's not producing results, because they aren't doing it right.

[0007]

The FBI wouldn't have most of the people are employed by the batfe. That agency is the standing joke among most of the other 3 letter agencies in DC.

[Old Dog]

Not a surprising report, but the report doesn't really damn ATF the way all the ATF haters might wish, just spotlights a ton of administrative deficiencies and perhaps a little misconduct on the part of the agency's paper-shufflers. It's not unexpected that the agency is deficient in processing background checks and clearances; DOD and about every other federal agency has had long-standing problems doing this as well. Typical IG report. I'd bet the FBI really, really doesn't want the administrative nightmare of absorbing ATF's functions.
Here's an interesting tidbit on this agency, though:
http://www.jpfo.net/alert20050307.htm
New Spirit of Cooperation with Gun-Makers JPFO Alerts
Jews For The Preservation of Firearms Ownership, Inc.
P.O. Box 270143
Hartford, WI 53027
Phone (262) 673-9745
Fax (262) 673-9746
March 7, 2005
New Spirit of Cooperation With Gun-Makers:
The BATFE Changes Its Stripes
JPFO has just received a rare bit of good news about the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives. In at least one area of operations, the BATFE is making a dramatic turnaround.
The agency is functioning with a new spirit of cooperation toward gun-makers.
It began last month. The new attitude was inspired by the actions of heroic firearms manufacturer and, we're proud to say, by JPFO's alerts about that man's courage.
Remember that on January 3, JPFO issued an alert detailing Len Savage's stand against one particular BATFE injustice. Len is the owner of Historic Arms, which makes semi- automatic versions of famous military rifles. He was also an expert witness against BATFE wrongdoing.
The BATFE's first response to Len's calm defiance was predictable and typical.
Within two days, they declared that a firearm Len had sent for their approval (an SGMB, a copy of a Hungarian/Russian firearm) was an "illegal machine gun" -- even though it was clearly semi-automatic.
They confiscated the gun and it looked as if Len might be intended as the next victim of an "economic Waco."
But then the story took an unusual turn. Instead of bowing down, Len marshaled his facts and kept on fighting. He fought not only for his own rights, but he kept making noise about other BATFE injustices.
The BATFE must have realized it had an unusual, and intransigent, opponent.
In February, after Len simply welded an interference rail more strongly to the "illegal machine gun," the BATFE declared the SGMB legal again and returned it to him.
Within a week, they had approved Len's next firearm (a semi-automatic version of the MAG-58/U.S. M-240 machine gun) with no changes.
BUT THAT'S NOT ALL
Suddenly, Len was receiving calls from gun makers all around the country. "I don't know what you did," they said. "But thank you."
These gun makers -- who have typically had to wait three to six months for approvals of their designs -- were getting approvals in two weeks.
The BATFE Tech Branch was answering, instead of ignoring, their questions.
The BATFE's tech experts were being cooperative and polite. They were being helpful. And they still are.
This is just one step on the road to restoring American rights. But it is a step in the right direction.
Len says, "I'm very thankful for the BATFE's new cooperative attitude. My only hope is that this state of affairs is not temporary. This affects much more than just me; it affects everyone who must work with the BATFE."
What is Len Savage's secret? "If you want to stand for your rights when dealing with the BATFE, document everything. Have your facts together. Don't just shoot off your mouth. Be polite. But when you know you're right and you can prove it, never back down and don't be afraid to speak up."
He adds, "After all, if you're not willing to stand up for your rights, do you even deserve to have rights?"
Congratulations to Len Savage. Continued good fortune to America's gun-makers.
And even some thanks to the BATFE for trying to do the right thing. JPFO is proud to have played a part in making this change happen.
The Liberty Crew
Copyright © 2005 JPFO, Inc. Permission is granted to reproduce this alert in
full, so long as the JPFO contact information is included.

[Burt Blade]

The laws regarding firearms that the ATF enforce are unconstitutional, thus void. Sadly, this is overlooked by our criminal justice system. ("criminal" should be the clue here.)

But even if we assume, for argument, that these abominable laws are valid, they should still not be enforced. Once upon a time, a country passed laws that said Jews had to go to the "relocation" camps, and get that vapor-based "shower". Another country had some areas that used to jail folks with dark skin for wanting to marry light-skinned folks, of for just sitting on the wrong bus seat.

Just because some idiots make a law, doesn’t make the law right, or make it moral to enforce it. I _expect_ copy, judges, and juries to negate unjust laws. The consequences of people making a moral stand not to enforce are far less than a system where no one challenges immoral laws.

"I was only following orders." is _not_ a valid defense.

[Molon Labe]

The laws regarding firearms that the ATF enforce are unconstitutional, thus void. Sadly, this is overlooked by our criminal justice system.This fact is also overlooked by many gun owners... :(

[Deavis]

The laws regarding firearms that the ATF enforce are unconstitutional, thus void. Sadly, this is overlooked by our criminal justice system. ("criminal" should be the clue here.)

You choose to live in a country where we are governed by decisions made by the courts. Those courts have decided through direct action or inaction in some cases that the laws are constitutional. You can argue all day about them being unconstitutional but that is simply your opinion and holds no weight in the legal system as it stands today. If you feel that they should be changed then become a lawyer or a judge and make a difference. Otherwise, you are free to leave anytime you want, nobody makes you stay in the U.S.

Don't get me wrong, I like jumping thorugh the hoop about as much as you do but I'm putting money away every month for law school after I retire from my first job. That way I can make a difference down the line in the areas that matter to me.

Once upon a time, a country passed laws that said Jews had to go to the "relocation" camps, and get that vapor-based "shower". Another country had some areas that used to jail folks with dark skin for wanting to marry light-skinned folks, of for just sitting on the wrong bus seat.

When the time came for the last example, someone did stand up and in this country, things changed. We are a far cry from concentration camps and our fight can be won in the courts that you villify.

Just because some idiots make a law, doesn’t make the law right, or make it moral to enforce it. I _expect_ copy, judges, and juries to negate unjust laws. The consequences of people making a moral stand not to enforce are far less than a system where no one challenges immoral laws.

To that, I say, "Put your money where your mouth is and be an MLK." It is your job to change unjust and immoral laws.

MLK, Letter from Birmingham Jail

One may won ask: "How can you advocate breaking some laws and obeying others?" The answer lies in the fact that there fire two types of laws: just and unjust. I would be the Brat to advocate obeying just laws. One has not only a legal but a moral responsibility to obey just laws. Conversely, one has a moral responsibility to disobey unjust laws. I would agree with St. Augustine that "an unjust law is no law at all"

Now, what is the difference between the two? How does one determine whether a law is just or unjust? A just law is a man-made code that squares with the moral law or the law of God. An unjust law is a code that is out of harmony with the moral law. To put it in the terms of St. Thomas Aquinas: An unjust law is a human law that is not rooted in eternal law and natural law. Any law that uplifts human personality is just. Any law that degrades human personality is unjust. [...]

Let us consider a more concrete example of just and unjust laws. An unjust law is a code that a numerical or power majority group compels a minority group to obey but does not make binding on itself. This is difference made legal. By the same token, a just law is a code that a majority compels a minority to follow and that it is willing to follow itself. This is sameness made legal [...]

Sometimes a law is just on its face and unjust in its application. For instance, I have been arrested on a charge of parading without a permit. Now, there is nothing wrong in having an ordinance which requires a permit for a parade. But such an ordinance becomes unjust when it is used to maintain segregation and to deny citizens the First Amendment privilege of peaceful assembly and protest. [...]

In no sense do I advocate evading or defying the law, as would the rabid segregationist. That would lead to anarchy. One who breaks an unjust law must do so openly, lovingly, and with a willingness to accept the penalty. I submit that an individual who breaks a law that conscience tells him is unjust and who willingly accepts the penalty of imprisonment in order to arouse the conscience of the community over its injustice, is in reality expressing the highest respect for law.

Of course, there is nothing new about this kind of civil disobedience. It was evidenced sublimely in the refusal of Shadrach, Meshach and Abednego to obey the laws of Nebuchadnezzar, on the ground that a higher moral law was at stake. It was practiced superbly by the early Christians, who were willing to face hungry lions and the excruciating pain of chopping blocks rather than submit to certain unjust laws of the Roman Empire. To a degree, academic freedom is a reality today because Socrates practiced civil disobedience. In our own nation, the Boston Tea Party represented a massive act of civil disobedience.

We should never forget that everything Adolf Hitler did in Germany was "legal" and everything the Hungarian freedom fighters did in Hungary was "illegal." It was "illegal" to aid and comfort a Jew in Hitler's Germany. Even so, I am sure that, had I lived in Germany at the time, I would have aided and comforted my Jewish brothers. If today I lived in a Communist country where certain principles dear to the Christian faith are suppressed, I would openly advocate disobeying that country's antireligious laws.


That is a man who knew how to change truly unjust laws. Read the whole thing and take notes if you want to play that card.

http://www.nobelprizes.com/nobel/peace/MLK-jail.html

[DMF]

"Shill?" To whom would you be referring? Care to mention his/her username? http://www.glocktalk.com/images/smilies/upeyes.gif Too bad you don't have the backbone to confront that person head on rather than calling names through vague statements.

They already have all the power and authority they need to do this job. They simply aren't doing it.

Well they may have certain authority, but carrying out those functions requires that ATF be allocated a PROPER budget, to include hiring the personnel needed, to carry out all those requirements.

I have posted about this here before, ATF has been short on the necessary budget and personnel, especially regarding numbers of Inspectors and Inspector training, needed to carry out many of their administrative responsibilities. I hope you all will read this carefully, and realize what was addressed in this report deals primarily with the admin and inspection functions of ATF, NOT the criminal investigations? Also, it must be put in context of inadequate budgets to meet the responsibilities placed on the agency by the legislature.

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,126210,00.html

[DMF]

I'd bet the FBI really, really doesn't want the administrative nightmare of absorbing ATF's functions. Well the FBI leadership may not want the admin and inspection functions of ATF, but with regard to explosives investigation they have consistently gone after that prize. The FBI currently has primary jurisdicition for arsons and bombings that can be linked directly to terrorism. The ATF has primary jurisdiction for all the criminal arson and bombing.

Guess what? Terror bombings and arson only account for less than 5% of the arsons and bombings in this country. So the FBI would love to get into the other 95%. However, Congress has decided ATF will be the lead on the other 95%, because the ATF has been so successful in working those cases.

[DMF]

You can argue all day about them being unconstitutional but that is simply your opinion and holds no weight in the legal system as it stands today. Deavis, you are absolutely right about this. What many others won't admit is that they only want to support the parts of the Constitution they like, and don't wish to be "inconvenienced" by the rest of it.

People who say they love the Constitution, are supposed to support and defend the whole thing, not just the parts they like. BTW, to anyone that is unhappy with some or all of the Constitution, you should try reading Article V.

[gezzer]

Quote:
Well they may have certain authority, but carrying out those functions requires that ATF be allocated a PROPER budget, to include hiring the personnel needed, to carry out all those requirements.


Last time they had lots of money they bought A10's.

Congess gave them money to fix the NFA register that's still messed up. The agency needs a complete overhaul.

[DMF]

The ATF never bought A-10s.

Once upon a time when ATF had air assests (early 90s), like DEA, FBI, Customs, and many other fed agencies, Congress gave them some retired USMC OV-10s. OV-10s are MUCH different aircraft than the A-10. Also, they didn't get much use out of them before Congress took away their airplanes, and gave the OV-10s to another agency. Regardless, all military armament was removed from the OV-10 which meant the ATF got a twin engine turbo prop aircraft to use for surveillance.

For your edification:

OV-10:
http://www.air-and-space.com/20020601%20Ramona/2%2012%20OV-10%20N409DF%20left%20side%20m.jpg



A-10:
http://www.basecamp-1.com/owensplace/images/a10.jpg

[Blackburn]

The ATF never bought A-10s.

Owned! :D

[Deavis]

Congess gave them money to fix the NFA register that's still messed up. The agency needs a complete overhaul.

The ATF is no different than any other agency or business in the world in regards to maintaining proper records. Anyone who has ever had to manage a database for a large/medium corporation (small ones are even worse!) knows how difficult it is to keep it accurate and up to date. How many businesses do you know that have had to hold records (on paper no less) for 70 years? Go ask GE to pull out their records from 1938, 1962, or 1971. Expect a blank stare and a laugh in your face.

The problem is getting your employees to follow the right procedures, not take short-cuts, and adhere to entry rules is next to impossible. Sure, they aren't managing millions of tranfers a day like credit card companies but they also don't spend/recieve the money that credit card companies do to maintain their records. Don't let your dislike for the laws they enforce color your expectations.

If you want spotless records it costs serious money and requires an incredible investment of time/manpower. It also requires that you hire top notch people, train them very well, and instill a sense of pride in them. Tough to do when you can work in the private sector making many times over what the ATF could offer you.

Now, correcting the NFA registration when you have kept proper records (ie you have a registered gun that they say isn't) is another matter completely that I believe, from my limited knowledge, has been a serious problem for some people. If you have the forms (you did keep spotless records, right?) then it should be a fairly painless process if they are doing their job right. I think most people are just hoping for another amnesty :)