is there really nothing in writing, if so, how come this?

[alan]

The other day I received a fund raiser from JPFO. This item sought monetary assistance for their production of a film critical of BATFE. This film is entitled The Gang. Readers might be familiar with JPFO's position regarding BATFE and their operations and methods.

The mailing also made mention of a new to me outfit. It's name is the National Firearms Trade and Collectors Association, see google.com for more on them. It seems that they are assisting the NFA branch and BATFE in the writing of a manual that would presumable codify BATFE's testing procedure, a procedure that has come under some question, and which it seems, is nowhere written or standardized. Given that charges of violation of federal firearms law, law enforced by BATFE is serious business, the lack of written test criteria strikes one as strange.

The JPFO mailing mentions National Firearms Act Trade and Collectors Association as follows.

We've Got to Stop More than the BATFE

A new industry trade group--the National Firearms Act Trade and Collectors association--(I call them cynical "patriots for profit")-- claims to be working closely with BATFE, helping them write the manual that will solve the testing abuses--It will not.

You cannot end government oppression by working closely--compromising with the oppressors.

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

The following is excerpted from the National Firearms Act Trade and Collectors Association web site, Google them for more.

During the last year the NFATCA has worked closely with the ATF and NFA Branch in many ways. Communication lines have been opened and placed us on a much better playing field, both sides working toward a common goal. We have been able to successfully sit down with members of ATF and co-write a new NFA handbook that is user friendly and sets clear rules of understanding for both parties. We are well on our way in this area and have approximately 10 chapters completed thus far.

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

What strikes me as curious is the following, especially given the seriousness, for the individual, of being charged with a violation of the federal laws that BATFE enforces. How come there seems to be no written procedure for the testing that criminal charges can rest on. Also, how is it that The Congress, under the control of Democrats as well as Republicans has allowed the above situation to carry on? Also, how is it that Democratic as well as Republican administrations have allowed a government agency to act in such a manner, that is without basic, written procedures that are standardized, and not subject to individual whim or to subjective judgments? We are not dealing with traffic tickets here, for serious criminal penalties are enforced against individuals convicted of violation of the federal laws herein involved, federal law enforced by the BATFE.

Readers might want to address question to their elected things and or to The White House regarding this situation.

 

[Ryder]

a new NFA handbook that is user friendly and sets clear rules of understanding

Why didn't they just use the ones from Britain or Austrailia? Not much question left about what's legal in those places.

 

[Zoogster]

As much as we may dislike the BATF for thier methods and setting the stage for some of our countries most serious violations of human rights (IE waco, ruby ridge etc) their very existence depends on firearms being available and restricted.
If firearm ownership ceases the need for the BATF also ceases. This of course does not mean they will act with our (or thier) best interest in mind, it is simply an observation.
They may want to create more restrictions to enforce and get thier tenticles in, but each one is one step closer to thier own demise (and loss our or RKBA.)

Unless they plan on large amounts of taxes being given to thier agency to oversee tabacco (being outlawed through taxation most places anyways) and alcohol. But then again they oversee explosives!

Ha I can only imagine the tightening of alcohol laws if they lost thier bread and butter of firearms oversight. They would attempt to create a need for thier agency through strict restrictions and enforcement on alcohol ...suddenly armed raids on bars and liqor stores making even the slightest error in complicated procedures would be common! For our safety of course...Stings would be setup trying to entrap people into buying from wholesellers not adhering perfectly to policy.

 

[kengrubb]

If firearm ownership ceases the need for the BATF also ceases

I disagree. The Volstead Act created a tremendous need for Treasury Agents.

 

[model 649]

Given the ATF's reputation for "making it up as they go along", something in writing would at least tie them to SOME kind of rule. Compromising with them? You got a better idea to rein the ATF in short of disbanding it? Right now the compromises mostly go their way(even the ridiculous ones). I suppose if one had enough funding to truly challenge them in court................. Face it, they are likely to outlive us all. I had a tough time swallowing the idea that the ATF was more or less free to rule as they see fit. If that is in fact reality, then I'm all for "something in writing" that the ATF must go by. Some boundaries on the ATF's conduct are very much in order. They seem to have a great deal of power over people with very little "check" on their behavior. Never a good thing to hand to a government agent or office. A bigger mystery is how the ATF got so big and bad after prohibition fizzled out. Big dogs require bigger chains, that's all I'm thinking.
Josh

 

[Zrex]

Alan -

Own any NFA? Deal in NFA? Design, build or sell firearms?

Do you know anything about what is going on? ATF has no written testing standards. These are the people that decided a 14" piece of shoestring with loops tied on the ends is a machine gun. FTB makes things up as they go along. Do you prefer NO standards, ATF standards without industry input, or ATF standards WITH industry input?

I will let you be the one to call Dan Shea, John Tibbets & Bob Landies and call them names for trying to make things better. But you probably don't know them & have never heard of them.

 

[alan]

Zrex:

In answer to your questions, No, however I do know something about guns, though I wouldn't know how to go about designing one. I also believe that there is a very serious problem with the antics, or the enforcement practices of the BATFE.

As for the three men whose names you mentioned, they are isted as Founding Members of the National Firearms Act Trade and Collectors Association. Mr. Landies is associated with Ohio Ordinance Works, a firm that I have heard of. I'm not in the "name calling" business, though I did quote JPFO's comments. I also included an excerpt from the National Firearms Act Trade and Collectors Association. By the way, some have described JPFO as being "over the top", and re some of their offerings, I think that they might be. Overall though, I think their efforts are valuable.

As to whether or not I know what is going on, I believe that I have some understanding thereof, having tried to follow the Glover case and that of Albert Kwan. Re the latter, from what I've read about it, it sounds like a government firearms technician altered evidence, might one say tampered with evidence, in order to produce machinegun like function, which seems to be the basis for criminal charges against Kwan. Like I said, I believe that BATFE operating methods present some serious problems. If you noticed, I questioned the fact that the congress and various aministrations have allowed an agency usually called the ATF a degree of latitude that is questionable to say the very least.

As to whether the gentlemen you named are trying to make things better, I'm sure that they think they are. JPFO seems to question that, and at this point, I cannot tell who is right.

In conclusion, No, I would not prefer "No standards", for that seems to be at least part of the problem. I do wonder as to the wisdom of the BATFE playing a significant role in the promulgating of the standards. JPFO apears to have a problem with NFATCA's activity, their working closely with ATF and NFA Branch, and they might have a point in their objection. Of course, it could be that JPFO is off base here, only time and events will answer that question.

It seems to me that JPFO might be concerned re the following possibility. Is there a liklehood of BATFE "co-opting" an industry group such as NFATCA. Perhaps they might have phrased their concern differently, that would be something to take up with them.

 

[Gifted]

JPFO is one of the more "die-hard" groups. They'd much rather see the BATFE abolished, along with the NFA, than regulate it. Unfortunately, we'll have to regulate it first. Small steps, just the way it came.

From what I can tell, there's two groups in the pro-gun movement. People like the NRA, which I myself find a little too careful, and people like the JPFO, who are far more gung-ho about going on the offensive. The bolder groups however, seem to be smaller, and therefore less influential. Rather than opposing these standards, the JPFO should be joining the effort, making sure that the bureau is properly reigned in.

 

[Aguila Blanca]

As usual when dealing with or talking about the BATFE, something's rotten ... and it ain't in Denmark.

A number of years ago I was a member of a professional association, some members of which undertook contracts with field offices of a Federal agency (not the BATFE). Despite the fact that the regulations of the agency in Washington specifically and explicitely prohibited making ANY modifications to the standard consulting contract that was set forth in an appendix to the regulations, we found that many field offices were routinely making numerous changes. In my case, I felt that I had to resign from a project that was already 90% completed because of the catch-22 their revisions created: the contract required me to carry professional liability insurance, but the additional provisions the field office tacked onto the standard contract were so onerous that my insurance company said if I signed the contract they would void my policy.

This happened to enough more influential members of the association in enough states that the national association set up a task force to address it. I was named to the task force. We went to Washington, and we managed to meet with the people in the agency who were both supposed to be preventing the field offices from changing the contract, and who were also in the process of drafting a new standard contract.

So we explained to them in excruciating detail exactly why the requirements the field offices were adding were counter-productive ... largely because, in every case, they would act to void the very insurance coverage that the Government demanded its consultants to carry. The agency drones took notes and said that they would take our comments under advisement.

We then told them that if they would provide our association with a copy of the working draft of the proposed new contract, we would circulate it to the major insurance companies who at that time wrote coverage for people in our profession. The agency drones said they could not do that, that Federal law would not allow public input on a regulation while it was in preparation.

This is, of course, not true ... as witnessed by the fact that when the ADA regulations, or National Park Service regulations, or the like are being written, they are in fact put out for a public comment period. Nonetheless, having a purported industry association actually directly involved in writing a Federal agency's techical procedures manual seems rather improper. It sems to me the proper procedure would be for the Congress to require the BATFE to produce a technical standard, then put it out for a public comment period so that ALL interested parties can get in on the action, not only a limited few who are represented by (or who represent) a trade association.