Laws and rules

[James K]

When Congress passes a complex law, it usually gives some executive department the authority to make the rules and regulations needed to enforce it. Sometimes the department or agency will make very lax rules, sometimes very rigid ones.

Since all Federal gun laws arise out of the taxing power and the interstate commerce clause of the Constitution, enforcement and rule-making authority is given to the Secretary of the Treasury, who in turn delegates it to the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms. All three of these general product areas involve taxes, which is why they are lumped together. (Firearms are taxed, but remember that a dealers' and manufacturers' "license fees", are really special occupational taxes, and that the Class III transfer money is really a transfer tax.)

BATF can make rules and regulations, and does, but cannot go beyond the law in doing so. If they do, a court decision will almost always go against them. Of course, they always have to take orders from the Secretary of the Treasury and he from the President, so the rules and regulations can be hard or soft, depending on the policy of the administration.

When the law allows an option (e.g., "The Secretary may permit...") the Secretary in one administration may "permit", and the Secretary in another administration may not "permit".

That is one of the reasons our votes will be so critical this election. If you don't vote, don't complain about what you get.

If the law appears to be wrong, we can work to change it; but complaining about BATF is silly when the law itself is the real issue, not the regulations.

Jim

[Eric Blair]

Yes, the laws are the problem.

BUT,
ATF does interpret them how they will. They also write regulations to enforce the law, in ways that go much farther than the law requires.
The ATF under this administration has a stated goal to limit firearm ownership and firearm usage to the greatest extent that they can within the law.

Examples:
Re Classifying certain SPAS and Franchi shotguns as destructive devices.
Their definition of sporting usage for importation purposes. (No firearms that can accept a high capacity firearm.
Look how the ATF required the HK SL8 to be bastardized. GREY not the nasty black in color, silly stock, etc.
Points system that prevents the Glock 25 and Glock 28 from being imported.
The current "hi cap" magazine modification debacle. (Permitted if the magazine still fits in the original firearm, and no new material is used, and is of the same caliber.)

Heck, from the front of the ATF Firearms webpage;
"ATF recognizes the role that firearms play in
violent crimes and pursues an integrated
regulatory and enforcement strategy.
Investigative priorities focus on armed violent
offenders and career criminals, narcotics
traffickers, narco-terrorists, violent gangs,
and domestic and intenational arms
traffickers."

Ya gotta love the attitude. Firearms play a role in crime.
Typical attitude of the uninformed. Guns cause crime, not criminals.

ATF should be abolished, and if not, they should be cleaned out of they gun haters that seem to run the joint.

Just my humble opinion.

Eric

[James K]

Good points, but don't forget who put the gun haters in there. Remember on election day, especially when one candidate promises more of the same and a real "crack down" on the NRA and all gun owners. Not, you notice on crooks; they will be sleeping in the Lincoln bedroom.

Jim

[Art Eatman]

Seems to me that a large part of the BATF problem is the people doing the enforcing, or administrating those in the field.

I doubt that any of us would argue against BATF going after the armed-gang crowd. Their excuse for the raid at Waco was ridiculous. Their behavior in raiding people who have no connection to armed groups or who have any prior history of criminal or violent behavior is unconscionable. Their assumption that those who speak favorably of the Second Amendment are, in some manner, probable criminals, is anathema.

I grant that there are many bad laws passed to enforcement by BATF. Even so, their attitude in performing their duties indicates an agency belief-system that the average American gun-owner is more likely a Bad Guy than a Good Citizen.

I decided to vote Republican in 2000, on the gun issue, in 1996...This is one of the few elections where I am openly and outspokenly a single-issue candidate.

, Art

[James K]

We had better all become single issue candidates. Candidates who want to take away one right will eventually want to take away all of them, on the grounds of "protecting the children" of course.

BTW, anyone notice how "moderate" Mr. Lieberman is busy recanting all those positions that made him "moderate". He now says that Gore's policies are his policies. I thought he might be an honest, decent man, but he is a word-weaseling liar just like Bill and Al.

Jim

[James K]

We had better all become single issue candidates. Candidates who want to take away one right will eventually want to take away all of them, on the grounds of "protecting the children" of course.

Jim

[Art Eatman]

Talking about political positions and the upcoming debates:

Senator Gore could debate Veep Gore.
Senator Lieberman could debate Veep-candidate Lieberman.

When they were in Congress, Gore and Cheney voted generally in parallel on many issues.

Some folks have commented about the Republican ticket as the "all-oil ticket". Why do they not mention that Gore and Lieberman have large holdings in Awl Cumpny Stocks?

There I go again, expecting consistency from the left side of the aisle. Although Lieberman has been consistently anti-gun.

Enough OT, Art