Historic Arms LLC
Member
- Joined
- Oct 3, 2006
- Messages
- 42
The lack of any consistency in testing results and classification letters from the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives (BATFE), Firearms Technology Branch (FTB) is documented, and rather monumental in size and scope. This lack of consistency has now gone beyond impacting the United States firearms industry, and now is affecting United States citizens who are required at peril of life, liberty or property to speculate as to the meaning of penal statutes. The current lack of a defined testing procedure encourages arbitrary enforcement by failing to describe with sufficient particularity what a person must do in order to satisfy the definitions set forth in the National Firearms Act and the Gun Control Act of 1968.
Congress has documented the fact that the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives (BATFE), Firearms Technology Branch (FTB) has no written or publicly available testing procedure for testing of evidence presented in Federal Court, that would enable the ordinary citizen to conform his or her conduct to the law. Please see: Congressional Research Service, Memorandum "ATF Firearms Testing Procedures", October 20, 2005
There is pending legislation that addresses this issue directly, H.R. 1791, "The Fairness in Firearms Testing Act". This legislation improves consistency and accountability in firearm testing by requiring the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives (BATFE), to video document all examinations and tests.
The Supreme Court has clearly provided guidance, though currently ignored by BATFE:
City of Chicago v. Morales, 527 U.S. (1999):
"Vagueness may invalidate a criminal law for either of two independent reasons. First, it may fail to provide the kind of notice that will enable ordinary people to understand what conduct it prohibits; second, it may authorize and even encourage arbitrary and discriminatory enforcement." See Kolender v. Lawson, 461 U.S. at 357.
"The requirement that a legislature establish minimal guidelines to govern law enforcement." See Kolender v. Lawson, 461 U.S. at 358.
"First, the purpose of the fair notice requirement is to enable the ordinary citizen to conform his or her conduct to the law. "No one may be required at peril of life, liberty or property to speculate as to the meaning of penal statutes." Lanzetta v. New Jersey, 306 U.S. 451, 453, 83 L. Ed. 888, 59 S. Ct. 618 (1939).
Kolender v. Lawson, 461 U.S. (1983):
"We conclude 647(e) is unconstitutionally vague on its face because it encourages arbitrary enforcement by failing to describe with sufficient particularity what a suspect must do in order to satisfy the statute."
Lanzetta v. New Jersey, 306 U.S. (1939):
"A fundamental precept of our justice system is that citizens may not be " at peril of life, liberty or property to speculate as to the meaning of penal statutes." [about the statute in question]; "the terms it employs to indicate what it purports to denounce are so vague, indefinite and uncertain that it must be condemned as repugnant to the due process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment."
The BATFE through it's then Director Brad Buckles testified before Congress [House Committee on Appropriations, fiscal year 2003, pages 325-326] "ATF recognizes that machinegun receivers may be modified so that they no longer fall within the statutory definition of "machinegun" within the NFA." When questioned specifically about M-14 semiautomatic rifles built from surplus parts.
Mr. Buckles statements must have gone unheard by his employees. In 2006 in the 9th Circuit, the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives (BATFE), moved forward with US v. ALBERT KWOK LEUNG KWAN, Case 2:06-cr-00305-TSZ.
Mr. Kwan was charged with possessing an unregistered M-14 machinegun. The BATFE confirmed in court that the rifle while in Mr. Kwans possession was not capable of firing as a "machinegun", and that BATFE, Firearms Technology Brach did in fact through it's testing, altered Mr. Kwans rifle to fire as a "Machinegun". Mr. Kwan was found not guilty, but was required at peril of life, liberty or property to speculate as to the meaning of penal statutes. There were other actions taken by BATFE, that were clearly addressed by the Judge whose order who cited City of Chicago v. Morales, 527 U.S.(1999), and Lanzetta v. New Jersey, 306 U.S. (1939). Please see: Case 2:06-cr-00305-TSZ Document 144 Filed 08/15/2007
Congress has documented the fact that the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives (BATFE), Firearms Technology Branch (FTB) has no written or publicly available testing procedure for testing of evidence presented in Federal Court, that would enable the ordinary citizen to conform his or her conduct to the law. Please see: Congressional Research Service, Memorandum "ATF Firearms Testing Procedures", October 20, 2005
There is pending legislation that addresses this issue directly, H.R. 1791, "The Fairness in Firearms Testing Act". This legislation improves consistency and accountability in firearm testing by requiring the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives (BATFE), to video document all examinations and tests.
The Supreme Court has clearly provided guidance, though currently ignored by BATFE:
City of Chicago v. Morales, 527 U.S. (1999):
"Vagueness may invalidate a criminal law for either of two independent reasons. First, it may fail to provide the kind of notice that will enable ordinary people to understand what conduct it prohibits; second, it may authorize and even encourage arbitrary and discriminatory enforcement." See Kolender v. Lawson, 461 U.S. at 357.
"The requirement that a legislature establish minimal guidelines to govern law enforcement." See Kolender v. Lawson, 461 U.S. at 358.
"First, the purpose of the fair notice requirement is to enable the ordinary citizen to conform his or her conduct to the law. "No one may be required at peril of life, liberty or property to speculate as to the meaning of penal statutes." Lanzetta v. New Jersey, 306 U.S. 451, 453, 83 L. Ed. 888, 59 S. Ct. 618 (1939).
Kolender v. Lawson, 461 U.S. (1983):
"We conclude 647(e) is unconstitutionally vague on its face because it encourages arbitrary enforcement by failing to describe with sufficient particularity what a suspect must do in order to satisfy the statute."
Lanzetta v. New Jersey, 306 U.S. (1939):
"A fundamental precept of our justice system is that citizens may not be " at peril of life, liberty or property to speculate as to the meaning of penal statutes." [about the statute in question]; "the terms it employs to indicate what it purports to denounce are so vague, indefinite and uncertain that it must be condemned as repugnant to the due process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment."
The BATFE through it's then Director Brad Buckles testified before Congress [House Committee on Appropriations, fiscal year 2003, pages 325-326] "ATF recognizes that machinegun receivers may be modified so that they no longer fall within the statutory definition of "machinegun" within the NFA." When questioned specifically about M-14 semiautomatic rifles built from surplus parts.
Mr. Buckles statements must have gone unheard by his employees. In 2006 in the 9th Circuit, the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives (BATFE), moved forward with US v. ALBERT KWOK LEUNG KWAN, Case 2:06-cr-00305-TSZ.
Mr. Kwan was charged with possessing an unregistered M-14 machinegun. The BATFE confirmed in court that the rifle while in Mr. Kwans possession was not capable of firing as a "machinegun", and that BATFE, Firearms Technology Brach did in fact through it's testing, altered Mr. Kwans rifle to fire as a "Machinegun". Mr. Kwan was found not guilty, but was required at peril of life, liberty or property to speculate as to the meaning of penal statutes. There were other actions taken by BATFE, that were clearly addressed by the Judge whose order who cited City of Chicago v. Morales, 527 U.S.(1999), and Lanzetta v. New Jersey, 306 U.S. (1939). Please see: Case 2:06-cr-00305-TSZ Document 144 Filed 08/15/2007