Question on Title 18 USC versus Title 10 USC

[J-Bar]

Author Michael Z. Williamson posted a blog on Feb. 16 which included this question:

"With BATFE moving from Treasury Dept to Justice Dept under Homeland Security, should the federal firearm laws be relocated from Title 18 USC to Title 10 USC? Why or why not?"

(Link to whole blog: http://www.michaelzwilliamson.com/blog/)

His blog is an entertaining challenge to those who are calling for more gun control, but since I have no legal training, I really don't understand the question. Google tells me that Title 10 USC outlines the role of the armed forces, and that Title 18 USC deals with crimes and criminal procedure, but my ignorance takes over at that point.

If anyone would care to help, I would appreciate it.

 

[Frank Ettin]

Author Michael Z. Williamson posted a blog on Feb. 16 which included this question:

"With BATFE moving from Treasury Dept to Justice Dept under Homeland Security, should the federal firearm laws be relocated from Title 18 USC to Title 10 USC? Why or why not?".....

The short answer is that it's a nonsense question. When laws are enacted, decisions are made about where and how to codify those laws based on assessments of the subjects addressed. The shuffling of administrative agencies in the organizational charts of the Executive Branch really doesn't have much to do where particular statutes get filed in the Codes of the United States.

Note for example that the National Firearms Act was enacted as tax law, so in general the provisions of the NFA are codified in The Internal Revenue Code (Title 26 of the United States Code) even though much of the enforcement and administration of those laws now falls under the jurisdiction of AFT.

 

[J-Bar]

The short answer is that it's a nonsense question.

OK, thanks. Now I don't feel so bad about not understanding nonsense!

 

[RickD427]

The simple answer is "No."

The movement of the BATF from one executive department to another is irrelevant to the question. Firearms laws remain criminal statutes and as such are properly contained in Title 18 regardless of what department the enforcement agency is located in. As a side note, the NFA was enacted under the Commerce Clause (and back in the days when the Commerce Clause was narrowly viewed). The NFA statutes exist in Title 26 because the their legal basis was in tax. I suspect that if the NFA were re-codified with today's understating of the Commerce Clause, the statutes would be placed in Title 18.

Having read the blog, I simply cannot resist taking a swipe at the author's lack of knowledge regarding basic governmental organization. Let's look at a quote from the bog:

"With BATFE moving from Treasury Dept to Justice Dept under Homeland Security, should the federal firearm laws be relocated from Title 18 USC to Title 10 USC? Why or why not?"
​

1) The BATFE cannot be moving from the Treasury Department to the "Justice Department under Homeland Security." The BATFE currently exists under the Justice Department and has been so organized since 2002. It was part of the Treasury Department prior to 2002. The blog author seems to have his facts wrong if he thinks the move is yet to happen. If he's addressing the 2002 move, he needs an English lesson. In that case, he should be using the past verb tense to refer to the move.

2) The Justice Department is not "under Homeland Security." The two are separate, and distinct, executive departments. Neither is "under" the other. They exist at the same level of government.

The blog author claims quite a bit of experience shooting firearms. I don't know any different to question his firearms shooting experience. But as to shooting off his mouth, he just doesn't know what he's doing, or saying.

 

[CapnMac]

This one of those questions it's so very difficult to stay High Road with.

When the Coast Guard was administratively moved from Treasury to Homeland Security, they did not change all the laws the USCG enforces. (Just the same as when CG moved from Transportation to Treasury--but, that's a much more obscure factoid.)

It's already quite complicated in a declared war, what with CG answering to SecNav instead of SecDHS. Tossing in rewriting US Code would only make that worse.