Congressional hearings: BATFE and H.R. 5005 (merged)

Both were web cast this afternoon, starting at 2PM Eastern time.

Anyone see the broadcast? Questions, comment.

Struck me that the BATFE did not come off looking especially well. Then there was VPC's Ms.Rand, who regaled viewers with her complaints about the fact that prior to the Clinton Administration's War On FFL's, there were more licensees than there were gasoline stations in the U.S. She never quite got to telling anyone why this fact constituted a problem for anyone, other than anti gunners such as herself and VPC.

There was also a "horror story" dealing with the questionable actions of BATFE and a police department, regarding an Lt. on that dept, I believe it was Phoenix, Arizona. Sounded as if he was run round the flagpole by the above mentioned. Turns out that he was acquitted of criminal charges in a jury trial.

Getting back to BATFE, it seems that they maintain a "zero tolerance policy" regarding even minor clerical errors by FFL's. Think how such as that would effect government agencies, if applied to them. INS, TSA, FEMA, and the BATFE itself, along with their actions, comes to mind.


NYC's Mayor Bloomberg spoke in oposition to H.R. 5005. He also claimed that he was not an opponent of the Second Amendment or of gun ownership per se, at least that was the drift that I got from the web cast.

 

Thanks for the report.

Care to give us a report in HR 5005?

Thanks,

Rick

 

Why was the VPC even there at this hearing?????Bloomberg is liar. Was the NRA or GOA there? Was there a pro gun mayor there?

 

HR5005 is mostly worthless, but it does represent a chipping away at a number of things we hate. It also potentially opens a HUGE hole in the 86 ban, though I am not 100 percent certain of this at the moment. If this is true, it could be an awesome bill.

Here is the bill and here is a summary:

Age limit correction for buying ammo/guns. Nothing to see here, move along.

Government security contractors can transport machine guns interstate if it is part of satisfying a contract between them and the US govt. Hmmm mercenaries, yay.

Federal security contractors are no longer bound by state firearms laws, nor do they require ATF signoff for NFA stuff. (what it looks like, doesnt make sense to me, probably missed something)

922(o) is altered to read (adding B/C/D and (3)):

meaning that.... Security contractors working for the feds can receive Post 86 MGs as long as they can pass NICS. What I really wonder about here is whether those MGs would then become transferrable MGs. I'm guessing no, since any other civilian transferee wouldnt possibly fit under any exemptions except 922(o)(E) and the MG wouldnt have been owned before the date of the eneactment of that section. If you count the passage of this bill as the "enactment of this section" all MGs from 86 to 2006 become transferrable. Unfortunately, if you count the section as having been enacted in 86, the ban stays. But congress could have specified a date, couldnt they?

Also killed are a bunch of stuff that the NRA already toasted with some lawsuits in the 90s. Some brady crap, etc. Nothing will change for us.

Also added are authorizations to import barrels and receivers of any type for replacement or repair purposes.

 

Lots of stuff about private security contractors there huh. Looks like the gov. is getting ready to send blackwater after the soon to be insurgency of Americans in America.


The Hessians are coming! The Hessians are coming!

 

Why do I not like the sound of this bill at all...

Son who has the dirt on the private contractors? Sex slavery, murder, highway robbery, rape, etc.

 

Because it gives us practically nothing, but gives "security contractors" complete freedom from civilian firearms restrictions. The government would be able to dispense military hardware to anyone that it wanted. The possible uses for such mercenary forces within the US are pretty disturbing. If they arent meant for internal use, why give them exemption from transport law or state laws? As if SWAT isnt a big enough end-run around the Posse Comitatus Act.

Awful odd that this would be seen as a way to punish the ATF. I see nothing at all to reign them in. I dont see why the anti-gunners would even care about this bill, since the only people who get any firearms rights restored are basicaly government henchmen.

They could even use this to give machine guns to illegal aliens and call them security contractors if they wanted. In California.

 

That is complete Bull?????!!!

They strip the 2nd Ammendment rights away from citizens, then allow CONTRACTORS the legal right to obtain FA firearms???

OMG--that is WRONG, WRONG, WRONG.

 

Hmmm. I wonder what it takes to start a Federal security contractor company. Doesn't mean that you need to have a current contract, does it? Just that you bid on the work.


Hmmmmm.

 

Private Contractors may well refer to those such a Wackenhut employees who are hired by DOE to protect nuclear shipments, sites etc.

 

Congress Told of More ATF Abuses, Reforms Suggested

Congress Told of More ATF Abuses, Reforms Suggested
By Jeff Johnson
CNSNews.com Senior Staff Writer
http://www.cnsnews.com/ViewNation.asp?Page=\Nation\archive\200603\NAT20060329a.html

(CNSNews.com) - An Arizona police supervisor Tuesday said the federal agency charged with regulating the nation's firearms industry "absolutely devastated" his career and his personal life, all because he gave a gun to a friend as a gift.

Tucson Police Lt. Michael Lara was among a panel of witnesses who told the House Judiciary Subcommittee on Crime, Terrorism and Homeland Security that the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF) is in need of serious reform.

Lara purchased a handgun from a federally licensed firearms dealer (FFL) in 2003, planning to give it to a friend who was licensed by the Arizona State Police to carry a concealed weapon. One of the forms he completed as part of the purchase asked if he was the "actual buyer" of the firearm. The 28-year law enforcement veteran read the definition of "actual buyer" on the form and answered the question "yes."

During a review of the gun dealer's records, ATF noticed Lara's purchase and began investigating it. Lara was placed on administrative leave with pay, but even after an internal affairs investigation cleared him of any wrongdoing, ATF continued to pursue the case for seven additional months.

"ATF indicted me, claiming that I had not purchased the firearm as a gift, but that I had actually bought it for my friend using her money," Lara recalled.

The crime Lara was accused of is typically referred to as a "straw purchase," when one person buys a firearm on behalf of another person who is, usually, legally disqualified from gun ownership.

Lara said he initially believed that ATF would investigate the charges objectively, determine that he was innocent and move on to other cases. He now complains that ATF never interviewed any of the witnesses to the purchase of the firearm or his presentation of it to his friend as a gift. Lara said he is still baffled by the agency's actions.

"It just makes no sense to me why ATF would try to prosecute someone who had dedicated themselves to serving our community and who clearly did nothing wrong," Lara concluded. "It was obvious that there was no intent of wrongdoing."

After he was processed as a federal prisoner, Lara was released on his own recognizance, but now was unemployed and the recipient of intense media scrutiny, awaiting his day in court.

"I lost over $216,000 in saving and earnings. I had to refinance my home to help pay the bills and the attorney's fees," Lara recalled. "Three months after my arrest, my case went to trial. At the end of the trial, the jury deliberated less than one hour before finding me innocent of the charges."

Lara would wait two more months for his badge to be returned to him. But the ATF prosecution did not end when he resumed his police career.

"On my first day back to work I was given a 40-hour suspension without pay for 'criminal activity' because I had been indicted," Lara continued. "My professional career is shot. It's now been three years after the event and I am still a patrol lieutenant. It was made clear to me when I returned to work that I would never see any advancement."

The ATF representative present at the hearing did not address Lara's case, but Kristen Rand, legislative director for the anti-gun Violence Policy Center, did.

"Mr. [sic] Lara's situation sounds extremely unpleasant," Rand said, "but we should be careful not to just legislate based on one anecdote."

Pro-gun attorney says ATF over-reaching extends to dealers, too

Richard Gardiner, a Virginia attorney and an expert in federal firearms laws who often represents FFLs and gun owners under ATF scrutiny, argued that Lara's case is actually closer to being the rule than the exception.

"The ATF tends to focus or has a significant focus on trivial, immaterial violations which are unrelated to public safety," Gardiner said. "And they impose unreasonable standards of perfection which are simply not humanly achievable."

As an example, Gardiner recalled an ATF review of 880 "Firearms Transaction Record Part I - Over-The-Counter" forms collected by one of his gun dealer clients. Of the 34,320 blocks of information collected on those documents, ATF found 19 clerical errors.

"That is a 99.96 percent perfect completion record," Gardiner noted. "Yet ATF took the position that, because the dealer was aware -- based on the fact that he had completed 99.96 percent of the forms accurately -- that he committed a 'willful violation' with regard to the other four one-hundredths of a percent because he knew what his legal obligations were."

The bureau revoked that gun dealer's license and closed his business.

"Essentially, what the ATF position is, is that human beings can make no mistakes," Gardiner complained. "Indeed, in the oral argument in that case one of the judges asked the U.S. attorney what the ATF's position was and he said, 'zero tolerance.'"

Audrey Stucko, deputy assistant director for ATF's enforcement programs and services, defended the agency's actions.

"Under the Gun Control Act, license revocation may be undertaken for any willful violation of the law or regulations," Stucko said. "The term 'willful' is not defined in the law."

Federal courts have often sided with ATF's interpretation that the term "willful" means only that the gun dealer had prior knowledge of a requirement and, subsequent to gaining that knowledge, violated it, with or without intent. Gardiner told of cases where ATF identified customer responses of "Y" or "N" rather than "yes" or "no" in written responses to questions as "willful violations" on the part of gun dealers under investigation. Other dealers lost their licenses, Gardiner said, because customers had accurately listed their street address, city, state and zip code, but failed to include their county of residence.

"This is clearly not what Congress had in mind when it enacted the 'willful' standard in 1986," Gardiner argued. "A Senate Judiciary Committee report stated that the purpose for adding 'willfully' to the license revocation procedure is, and I quote, 'to insure that licenses are not revoked for inadvertent errors or technical mistakes.' But that is precisely what ATF is doing."

Subcommittee Chairman Howard Coble (R-N.C.) expressed concern about how ATF was spending some of the taxpayer dollars used to fund its work.

"ATF should not waste valuable resources worrying about ministerial errors committed by licensees," Coble said. "Rather, they should focus, it seems to me, on those licensees who willfully violate the laws and regulations and pose a threat of significant harm."

Coble also addressed ATF's pursuit of law-abiding gun buyers like Lt. Michael Lara.

"Prosecutions that are aimed at only padding case statistics - and I'm not suggesting that that's done, but if it is done - not only waste government resources but can also tarnish a law-abiding citizen's reputation as well, and cause individuals severe financial distress," Coble said.

His subcommittee is considering legislation that would give ATF other options besides revoking a gun dealer's license for lesser violations and unintentional errors. The proposal also includes a statutory definition of "willful violations" that would force ATF to prove that a gun dealer knowingly and intentionally defied a law or regulation before sanctions could be imposed.

 

Because to do so would require actual work effort.

If it quacks like a duck -- have the spine to call it one!

 

What a profound soundbite, this should be used every single day against all the anti nuts in an uproar at every massacre scene.

 

Poor Guy

When it happens to us ordinary commoners, we sure don't get to state our case before Congressional committees. And it happens to commoners all the time.

I'm sure that the ATF will soften up on fellow LEOs after this. The rest of us second-class citizens will see no changes. And forgive me for not holding my breath waiting for them to reduce the ATF's funding (or even more justly, disbanding it entirely).

 

Will Americans sleep better knowing how the ATF jack-booted thugs nearly bankrupted a law-abiding citizen?

Do I hear any kudos for the regulatory police state, in the "Land of the Free, Home of the Brave"?

 

I'm starting to see for myself why so many people hate the ATF - unbelievable.

 

When all else fails, vote from the rooftops!

 

That is horrible for this guy who went through trial. His life is screwed and there's no recourse. He won't get his savings back and he won't get his career back. He's just screwed. The best thing for him to do is to continue in his current dead-end job until retirement, and at least he'll get a pension, health care and a chance to build up some savings.

The #1 reform needed over at the BATF is to simply cut their budget. The less time and money they have the less harm they will do.

 

cutting their budget won't do anything other than find ways to provide more fines for 'violators'. What needs to be done is cases that the government loses, they need to reimburse the defendants costs.

 

The ONLY acceptable form of reform for the atf, would be to dismantle the organization completely.

 

That's actually second choice. The #1 needed reform is to disband the agency. Remember, BATFE was originally supposed to be about taxes.

 

How about making them pay for their mistakes by being sued for false arrest, loss of pay and cost of defense if found innocent by a jury?

 

Think about this kind of crap when someone gives you that old saw about "working within the system".

 

AZrickD:

Beerslurpy describes HR 5005 as "mostly worthless", then seems to qualify that opinion. I suggest that others read his comments, as well as the proposal itself. It's text is not lengthy, and does apear to offer some worthwhile provisions respecting repair parts. For full text, see thomas.loc.gov

"R5005 is mostly worthless, but it does represent a chipping away at a number of things we hate. It also potentially opens a HUGE hole in the 86 ban, though I am not 100 percent certain of this at the moment. If this is true, it could be an awesome bill."

Here is the bill and here is a summary:

Age limit correction for buying ammo/guns. Nothing to see here, move along.

Government security contractors can transport machine guns interstate if it is part of satisfying a contract between them and the US govt. Hmmm mercenaries, yay.

Federal security contractors are no longer bound by state firearms laws, nor do they require ATF signoff for NFA stuff. (what it looks like, doesnt make sense to me, probably missed something)

922(o) is altered to read (adding B/C/D and (3)):

Quote:
(o)
(1) Except as provided in paragraph (2), it shall be unlawful for any person to transfer or possess a machinegun.
(2) This subsection does not apply with respect to—
(A) a transfer to or by, or possession by or under the authority of, the United States or any department or agency thereof or a State, or a department, agency, or political subdivision thereof;
(B) a transfer to, or possession by, a person to comply with a contract between that person and the United States which requires the person to provide national security services for the United States or any training related to the services;
(C) a transfer to, or possession by, a licensed manufacturer or licensed importer solely for testing, research, design, or development of ammunition or a firearm;
(D) a possession by a licensed manufacturer or licensed importer for the purposes of training persons to whom a machinegun, manufactured or imported by the licensee, may be transferred as described in subparagraph (A) or (B); or'
(E) any lawful transfer or lawful possession of a machinegun that was lawfully possessed before the date this subsection takes effect.
(3) A person shall not transfer a machinegun to another person in the circumstances described in paragraph (2)(B) of this subsection, unless the Attorney General has notified the person that the Attorney General has determined, based on the fingerprints of such other person and on information in the national instant criminal background check system established under section 103 of the Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act, that such other person is not prohibited from possessing or receiving a firearm under Federal or State law.

meaning that.... Security contractors working for the feds can receive Post 86 MGs as long as they can pass NICS. What I really wonder about here is whether those MGs would then become transferrable MGs. I'm guessing no, since any other civilian transferee wouldnt possibly fit under any exemptions except 922(o)(E) and the MG wouldnt have been owned before the date of the eneactment of that section. If you count the passage of this bill as the "enactment of this section" all MGs from 86 to 2006 become transferrable. Unfortunately, if you count the section as having been enacted in 86, the ban stays. But congress could have specified a date, couldnt they?

Also killed are a bunch of stuff that the NRA already toasted with some lawsuits in the 90s. Some brady crap, etc. Nothing will change for us.

Also added are authorizations to import barrels and receivers of any type for replacement or repair purposes.

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



Kim asked:

Why was the VPC even there at this hearing?????Bloomberg is liar. Was the NRA or GOA there? Was there a pro gun mayor there?

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

As to VPC's presence, I supose that they requested time to testify. Mayor Bloomberg and the administration of NYC, where I lived for many years, have all manner of problems, some of them unrelated to firearms in any way at all. Mayor Bloomberg is indulging in that game called CYA, or Blame someone, something else, for your failures.

People who testified were as follows, not counting Members of Congress who spoke. A rep from BATFE. An attorney who has participated in legal actions involving FFL's and BATFE, a spokesperson from the VPC. A police lieutenant from Arizona, Phoenix I believe, who had had an unhappy involvement with BATFE and his dept. Bloomberg actually testified later on, during discussions re H.R. 5005, a separate matter entirely.

Neither GOA nor NRA testified, no did any pro gun mayors. I have no ideas as to why.

 

I like the idea of putting more cracks in the MG ban, but on the whole, this sounds like a bad bad idea. I don't like the idea of private companies having special privileges.

I know there's some good logic behind it: It's reasonable to hire a private company to do nuclear security, for example, which means transporting waste from a plant in NY to Yucca Mountain. It seems reasonable that people who are doing that should have access to whatever weapons they need (which certainly includes some MGs) and they should not be constrained by NY's state idiocy for example. That sounds reasonable!

But it has too many other open-ended implications which are NOT reasonable, and the right thing to do is to reform the laws for all of us, not for some special class.