BATF violated federal law by creating a database of private gun ownership

Status
Not open for further replies.
Let's go back to the basics:

- Is there federal law prohibiting generation of such a database ?
- Did the BATF create such a database ?
- Did the BATF violate federal law in so doing ?
- And if they did so in violation the Appropriation act, are they "deficient" for the money spent in the legal parlance ?



.
 
Last edited:
Frank Ettin said:
When one isn't rigorous about data and evidence, he will lose the argument every time to someone who is.
Click to expand...

At face value this statement is true. But few are listening to the complete argument on any subject including gun control. Only the detail oriented folks pay attention to such things and they are a huge minority in my experience. People in general think in terms of tweet length thoughts. The complete story seldom gets any air time. So, the "facts" that are presented are selective often on both sides of the 2A issue.

So as mentioned, did the BATFE violate federal law? Yes
Was it intentional? Probably
Is there political pressure to create a registry or data base? No question in my opinion.
 
I really do wish people would stop "reporting" bias slanted junk like the article in the OP, so that "their side" will buy it hook line and sinker. Both "sides" do this. And no, we shouldn't be doing it.
 
If someone hasn't already done so, I'd like to point out that they audited 4 systems and that 2 out of the 4 systems were not in compliance.

That is a 50% pass/rate. :what:



MEHavey said:
Let's go back to the basics:

- Is there federal law prohibiting generation of such a database ?
- Did the BATF create such a database ?
- Did the BATF violate federal law in so doing ?
- And if they did so in violation the Appropriation act, are they "deficient" for the money spent in the legal parlance ?


.
Click to expand...


The following, although worded a little different, IMO supports a "Yes" answer to all four of your questions


You could also throw in that that violated the Antideficiency Act per the GAO's conclusion.



http://www.gao.gov/assets/680/678091.pdf
Starting on pdf page 95

Conclusion:

Two of the data systems under review, OBRIS and MS, comply with the provision in ATF’s fiscal year 2012 appropriation prohibiting the use of funds for the consolidation or centralization of firearms records. ATF collects and maintains firearms transaction information in each system incident to the implementation of specific statutory authority and it does not exceed those statutory purposes. ATF’s A2K system for in-business FFLs and its maintenance of certain firearms information pertinent to criminal investigations in FRNP are likewise consistent with the appropriations act restriction.

However, ATF’s collection and maintenance of out-of-business A2K records on the server at NTC violated the restriction, as did its collection and maintenance of data from certain FFLs as part of the SWBWOC Program. In both cases, ATF’s aggregation of information was not supported by any statutory purpose.

ATF’s failure to comply with the prohibition on the consolidation or centralization of firearms records also violated the Antideficiency Act.(57) The Antideficiency Act prohibits making or authorizing an expenditure or obligation that exceeds available budget authority.(58)

As a result of the statutory prohibition, ATF had no appropriation available for the salaries or administrative expenses of consolidating or centralizing records, or portions of records, of the acquisition and disposition of firearms in connection with the SWBWOC Program(59) or A2K for out-of-business records. The Antideficiency Act requires that the agency head “shall report immediately to the President and Congress all relevant facts and a statement of actions taken.”(60) In addition, the agency must send a copy of the report to the Comptroller General on the same date it transmits the report to the President and Congress.(61)
Click to expand...



56) Id. at 214.

57) 31 U.S.C. § 1341(a).

58) We have consistently concluded that the use of appropriated funds for prohibited purposes violates the Antideficiency Act, because no funds are available for the purpose. See, e.g., B-325248, Sept. 9, 2014 (appropriations used in violation of a grassroots lobbying prohibition); B-321982, Oct. 11, 2011 (appropriations used in violation of statutory restriction against engaging in bilateral activities with China or Chinese-owned companies); B-302710, May 19, 2004 (appropriations used in violation of prohibition against publicity or propaganda).

59) We have no record of GAO receiving an Antideficiency Act report from ATF after the Chief Counsel’s 2009 determination that the agency had violated the restriction on the consolidation or centralization of records.

60) 31 U.S.C. § 1351.

61) Id. The Office of Management and Budget (OMB) has published requirements for executive agencies for reporting violations. OMB, Preparation, Submission, and Execution of the Budget, OMB Circular No. A-11, §§ 145, 145.8 (Washington, D.C.: June 2015). OMB has advised executive agencies to report violations found by GAO. The Circular further provides that “f the agency does not agree that a violation has occurred, the report to the President, Congress, and the Comptroller General will explain the agency’s position.”
Click to expand...
 
Frank Ettin said:
Barnbwt said:
Indeed, this topic exists in a vacuum with absolutely no context; we should read nothing into ATF motives or past/expected future behavior as being cooperative or subversive to this audit's findings or recommendations.....
Click to expand...

I guess all you have to contribute to a discussion of the subject is your bile and spleen. You have nothing substantive.
Click to expand...

Good lord, Frank. We all know you're crass, but this is as close as even a lawyer can get to an ad hom/personal attack whilst staying just this side of the rules you're tasked with enforcing as a mod. Maybe check yourself.
 
MachIVshooter said:
Frank Ettin said:
Barnbwt said:
Indeed, this topic exists in a vacuum with absolutely no context; we should read nothing into ATF motives or past/expected future behavior as being cooperative or subversive to this audit's findings or recommendations.....
Click to expand...

I guess all you have to contribute to a discussion of the subject is your bile and spleen. You have nothing substantive.
Click to expand...

Good lord, Frank. We all know you're crass, but this is as close as even a lawyer can get to an ad hom/personal attack whilst staying just this side of the rules you're tasked with enforcing as a mod. Maybe check yourself.
Click to expand...

I guess you don't know the meaning of ad hominem:
...An Ad Hominem is a general category of fallacies in which a claim or argument is rejected on the basis of some irrelevant fact about the author of or the person presenting the claim or argument....
Click to expand...

I did not attack barnbwt personally or bring up any irrelevant fact about him or his character.

Rather I characterized his comments as adding nothing of substance to the discussion, but as merely reflecting his bitterness (bile) and sourness or anger (spleen).

barnbwt's comments to which I was referring were essentially just rants -- setting out no facts or evidence supporting those facts.
 
SuperNaut said:
This is weird thread to want to win.
Click to expand...
It's not a question of winning or losing a thread (and it really never should be).

Issues relating to possible overreaching of a regulatory agency and issues relating to application and enforcement of firearms laws are serious matters. As advocates for the RKBA, we need to understand those issues. Understand those issues can help us in our discussions with persons who aren't yet fully committed to either side of the RKBA question. It can also help us consider ways to advance our interests -- either politically or through thoughtful litigation.

But for that understanding to truly be helpful to us in that way it needs to be based on facts for which we have evidentiary support. And we need to be able to distinguish between evidence based facts and useless judgements "...distorted by the tendency to rely on personal anecdotes, small samples, easily available data, and faulty interpretation of statistics."

And by the way, perhaps the best source of facts which probably can not be disputed is the GAO audit report which is the subject of this thread. So the place to start is that report -- reading it, understanding it, and looking for rigorous ways in which the GAO's own findings could help our further our interests.

In fact, that's the approach danez71 took in post 29. If this thread has a winner it's him.
 
This isn't court - it's the court of public opinion. Different set of rules entirely.

When playing the devil's advocate for rigorous examination, the balancing act is to not paint oneself as the devil so well that your audience loses all respect.
 
Tirod said:
This isn't court - it's the court of public opinion. Different set of rules entirely.
Click to expand...

'We' should not stoop to intentionally misleading, deceiving, or jumping to our own predetermined bias conclusions, just because we aren't going to be held to standard by a judge or jury based on facts/legitimate evidence

In other words, why is it an entirely different set of rules and why do you think it should be an entirely different set of rules?
 
At this point I take everything the US government says with a grain of salt. It is so corrupt and criminal it rivals the Byzantine empire from a thousand years ago.

If someone comes to me and says I work for the government at any level and tells me something I automatically assume it is a lie. It is always they are telling a whopper unless I can verify it is not. They have so lowered themselves in the eyes of the public.

Could the GAO be lying yes. Does the ATF lie and break the law, does a bear crap in the woods? ATF, IRS, NSA, FBI, EPA, they make the law up as they go along.
 
SuperNaut said:
This is weird thread to want to win.
Click to expand...
LOL!

I didn't know you could "win" a thread..... We should start keeping score.

As far as the article goes, it sounds like some facts are wrong and/or skewed. The purpose of the GAO is to ensure proper use of taxpayer dollars. When they audited the BATF and found they were not always in compliance with federal law, they reported it, as expected, and that makes sense as it would be a misuse of taxpayer dollars.

So someone at the BATF screwed up (seems unlikely), or made a willful decision to do something illegal. Until an investigation is done, and a cause is identified, we are assuming an awful lot.

At this point I see that one government agency screwed up, be it willful or not, and another that was designed to catch screw ups, did in fact catch it. So....... when you think about it, the system worked. Go us!!!!

It just seems to me we need more facts before we start getting riled up and pissed off at the government. We have plenty of other stuff to be pissed at them for already that we do have evidence of.
 
danez71 said:
If someone hasn't already done so, I'd like to point out that they audited 4 systems and that 2 out of the 4 systems were not in compliance.

That is a 50% pass/rate. :what:
Click to expand...

I mean no offense, but that isn't really relevant. I'm no statistician, but think about the context of what you said. If they had audited one system and found it in compliance, that would be a 100% pass rate.

I agree, any noncompliance with federal law is a major no no, but a percentage being mentioned with such a small sample means very little.

If I speed for one mile out of 100, and you sample my compliance with state traffic laws on that one mile, I would have a 0% compliance rate, which sounds terrible. If you look at the entire trip, I only sped 1% of the time, which sounds awesome.

"Lies, damn lies, and statistics" MT
 
Tirod said:
This isn't court - it's the court of public opinion. Different set of rules entirely.
Click to expand...
Jim Watson said:
There may be nothing provable in court, but it is just another nail in the coffin of public trust in government.
Click to expand...

Personally I find it very distressing that so many people are so anxious to believe things that might not be true -- and worse, to act on things that might not be true. Why are people so willing to embrace intentional ignorance?
 
Frank Ettin said:
Personally I find it very distressing that so many people are so anxious to believe things that might not be true -- and worse, to act on things that might not be true. Why are people so willing to embrace intentional ignorance?
Click to expand...

Honestly I think it's fear. People are worried sick about losing their personal liberties, on both sides of the political fence, and it has made them defensive. Loud obnoxious candidates and a media that skews facts and reporting has made everyone edgy.

When people get edgy and worry for too long, fears grow into substantial threats in people's minds, and mob mentality takes over.

I am inclined towards paranoia, and do believe we have enough corruption in the government that secret agendas are a threat to our rights. However, I have so little faith in the accuracy of the media to report facts that I refuse to jump on the immediate "screw the government" bandwagon.
 
460Kodiak said:
Honestly I think it's fear. People are worried sick about losing their personal liberties, on both sides of the political fence,...
Click to expand...
Yes, certainly a lot of folks who oppose the RKBA are afraid of guns and people who have guns. They are content to believe things that aren't true about guns and people who have guns -- and to act on their ignorance.
 
Personally I find it very distressing that so many people are so anxious to believe things that might not be true --
Click to expand...

I think one big factor is the public pronouncements by government officials, candidates for office, and other influential parties of what they PLAN to do and would LIKE to do.
 
Jim Watson said:
I think one big factor is the public pronouncements by government officials, candidates for office, and other influential parties of what they PLAN to do and would LIKE to do.
Click to expand...
And you, who so distrusts the government and government officials, believe them then?

It all comes down to simply believing what you want to believe -- without regard to whether it is true or not -- without regard for evidence.

All that gets you is a chronic case of confirmation bias:

  1. Confirmation bias:
    In psychology and cognitive science, confirmation bias (or confirmatory bias) is a tendency to search for or interpret information in a way that confirms one's preconceptions, leading to statistical errors....
    Click to expand...

  2. Confirmation bias:
    Confirmation bias refers to a type of selective thinking whereby one tends to notice and to look for what confirms one's beliefs, and to ignore, not look for, or undervalue the relevance of what contradicts one's beliefs. For example, if you believe that during a full moon there is an increase in admissions to the emergency room where you work, you will take notice of admissions during a full moon, but be inattentive to the moon when admissions occur during other nights of the month. A tendency to do this over time unjustifiably strengthens your belief in the relationship between the full moon and accidents and other lunar effects....
    Click to expand...
 
Well Frank, since your from ************ and probably voted for the 2A hating Democrat politicians in your states I find your apologist answers for the most corrupt goobermint agency in Washington District of Corruption to be less than credible on its face. Are you paid by BATFE to discredit all those who out them for breaking the laws they are supposed to uphold???????
I find your lack of faith troubling, in itsa adherence to supporting a rogue agency who may have participated in gun running to subvert the Second Amendment as well as complicity in numerous murders tied to guns they supplied to the cartels.
 
Bkbear1 said:
Well Frank, since your from ************ and probably voted for the 2A hating Democrat politicians in your states I find your apologist answers for the most corrupt goobermint agency in Washington District of Corruption to be less than credible on its face. Are you paid by BATFE to discredit all those who out them for breaking the laws they are supposed to uphold???????
I find your lack of faith troubling, in itsa adherence to supporting a rogue agency who may have participated in gun running to subvert the Second Amendment as well as complicity in numerous murders tied to guns they supplied to the cartels.
Click to expand...

I've left this post up and am pointing it out primarily for the benefit of MachIVshooter. Here we have a classic example of the true ad hominem fallacy.

Bkbear1 is attacking my arguments solely on the basis that I live in California. (And he's making assumptions about for whom I voted without a shred of evidence.)

Beyond that I see no reason to comment on Bkbear1's drivel.
 
I've left this post up and am pointing it out primarily for the benefit of MachIVshooter. Here we have a classic example of the true ad hominem fallacy.

Bkbear1 is attacking my arguments solely on the basis that I live in California. (And he's making assumptions about for whom I voted without a shred of evidence.)

Beyond that I see no reason to comment on Bkbear1's drivel.
Click to expand...

My benefit? Please. Again, you're behaving like a lawyer and dancing around technicalities. That works in the courtroom. Everywhere else, the intent/inflection behind the words is just as important as the words used.

Ad hom is the assailing of one's character in an attempt to discredit their argument. Just because you make the particulars of the assault sorta relevant and don't exactly call the other person a poopyhead doesn't change that.

To that end, I would point out that your vitriolic responses don't make people apt to listen. A fair number of members have already indicated that their ears are closed. Not because you don't know what you're talking about, but because your delivery is often very offensive. Catch more flies with honey and all that.

This is supposed to be an online community a notch above the rest, where we discuss relevant matters amongst ourselves and help each other out respectfully. Telling other members, some of whom actually have well thought out responses (even if they aren't up to your standards), that they're spewing bile or that their opinions don't matter is hardly respectful.
 
MachIVshooter said:
I would point out that your vitriolic responses don't make people apt to listen. A fair number of members have already indicated that their ears are closed. Not because you don't know what you're talking about, but because your delivery is often very offensive. Catch more flies with honey and all that.

This is supposed to be an online community a notch above the rest, where we discuss relevant matters amongst ourselves and help each other out respectfully. Telling other members, some of whom actually have well thought out responses (even if they aren't up to your standards), that they're spewing bile or that their opinions don't matter is hardly respectful.
Click to expand...

Agreed. There is a lot of outright rudeness coming from you, Mr. Ettin, rudeness that is completely uncalled for. I'm sure you are an educated adult and can convey your message without mockery, condescension, and vitriol.
I'm a fisheries biologist. If I gave my recommendations and professional analysis of proposed fisheries with the same amount of rudeness as you, I'd been out of a job long ago.
 
Last edited:
Telling other members, some of whom actually have well thought out responses (even if they aren't up to your standards), that they're spewing bile or that their opinions don't matter is hardly respectful.
Click to expand...
Do not paint with a brush too broad.

It would be one thing to label drivel as drivel, and another to criticize people who do have well thought out responses.

It would be one thing to point out that unsubstantiated and irrelevant snide innuendo is not substantive (and I too think it was bile and spleen), and another to say that rational and supportable opinions don't matter.

To suggest that we should not treat the subject with balance simply because of what we think of the BATF reflects badly on us, and not on them.

I do not see " mockery, condescension, and vitriol". I see what is commonly referred to as "telling it like it is".

And it is incumbent upon us to counter such comments firmly.
 
To suggest that we should not treat the subject with balance simply because of what we think of the BATF reflects badly on us, and not on them.
Click to expand...

I completely agree with you, never said otherwise.

Doesn't change that a little tact goes a long way. Mike Rowe is able to shut down his critics and other dissenters very effectively without ever using a sharp tongue. In fact, his own humility in his responses causes those who were wrong to seriously reconsider their position, whereas using insults generally allows one's opposition to feel rather righteous in their dismissal of a rebuttle, regardless of the merit within.

Perhaps taking a play from his book would be wise for some here. I've been around long enough to see that it's nigh impossible to engage in debate with Frank without him being condescending, accusing you of spewing drivel, twaddle, bile or whatever is the synonym du jour, and basically calling you an idiot in so many words. As Silycosis4 pointed out, most of us wouldn't have careers if we treated our customers so disrespectfully, regardless of how wrong they may be. When one of mine says "I have X going on with my (insert vehicle), I think it's Y causing it", even if I know they are 100% wrong, I don't tell them they have no clue, no business attempting to diagnose their vehicle, and that they should stick to what they know and otherwise keep their mouth shut. No. I tell them "well, that's not real likely, but we're just gonna have to have a look and see. I'll let you know what I find!". And they come back, as well as send other people my way. No matter how good you are at what you do, you cannot be a complete prick to others and expect it to never bite you, and that includes being a moderator on a bulletin board.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

O
  • Locked
Guess how many firearm sales transactions ATF has in its database
Replies
11
Views
631
hso
hso
A
  • Locked
ah but who watchs the watchman??
Replies
6
Views
954
Standing Wolf
S
Trent
  • Locked
Chicago Violated Federal Law
Replies
10
Views
851
mgkdrgn
M
A
  • Locked
Hawaii could be first to put gun owners in federal database
Replies
24
Views
2K
230RN
230RN
U
  • Locked
Nationwide Firearms Database Shot Down
Replies
2
Views
479
hso
hso
Back
Top