Judiciary Committee hearing next week on ATF modernization bill

posted at 2:20 pm on September 8, 2010 by Ed Morrissey

This morning, I received a number of e-mails regarding a Senate Judiciary Committee hearing scheduled for next Tuesday with the ambiguous title, “Firearms in Commerce: Assessing the Need for Reform in the Federal Regulatory Process.”  It gives no other description except for the date and time (September 14, 10 ET in the Dirksen Building) and the link to the eventual webcast.  Those Hot Air readers who passed along their thoughts had concerns that Democrats might attempt to quietly push through a bill to limit 2nd Amendment rights before the midterm elections, a highly unlikely strategy unless Democrats want to make this election even more of a debacle than currently thought, or prepare for a lame-duck attempt that would resonate all the way through to 2012.

A source on Capitol Hill tells me that this hearing has nothing of the sort at issue.  The hearing will explore S941, the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives Reform and Firearms Modernization Act of 2009, which was passed in the House as HR2296.  The bill has a slate of bipartisan sponsors in the Senate, including Judiciary chair Pat Leahy (D-VT) and author Mike Crapo (R-ID), John Cornyn (R-TX), Max Baucus (D-MT), and 33 others.  The description of the bill from the legislative text shows that it mainly focuses on management of federal licenses and does so in a manner that 2nd Amendment activists will support:

Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives Reform and Firearms Modernization Act of 2009 – Amends the federal criminal code to revise the civil penalties for violations of firearms law and the procedures for assessing such penalties. Requires fines to be based upon the nature and severity of the violation, the size of the firearms business involved, and the prior record of the firearm’s licensee. Prohibits consideration of the amount of fines or license revocations imposed by agents of the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives (ATF) in the retention, promotion, or transfer of such agents.

Revises the definition of “willfully” for purposes of firearms violations and standards for criminal violations of firearms recordkeeping requirements.

Requires the Attorney General to: (1) make preliminary determinations on firearms license applications and notify applicants in writing of a proposed denial; and (2) establish guidelines for ATF inspections, examinations, or investigations of possible firearms violations.

Permits an owner of a firearms business whose license is expired, surrendered, or revoked 60 days to liquidate inventory.

Allows purchasers of existing firearms businesses the right to cure firearms violations attributable to such businesses.

Allows the transfer, possession, and importation of machineguns for industry testing, training, and film production.

Eliminates the requirement of written permission for the use of a handgun for lawful purposes by a minor (under age 18) where a parent or legal guardian is present at all times during such use.

Prohibits the Attorney General from electronically retrieving inactive firearms licensee information by name or personal identification code.

Directs the Attorney General to authorize the importation of all frames or receivers of rifles, or barrels for firearms other than handguns, if the importation is for repair or replacement purposes.

The NRA favors passage of S941 as well:

As we’ve been reporting for months, Senator Mike Crapo (R-Idaho) and Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Patrick Leahy (D-Vt.) have introduced S. 941, the “Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives Reform and Firearms Modernization Act of 2009” in the U.S. Senate.  Representatives Steve King (R-Iowa) and Zack Space (D-Ohio) have introduced a companion bill—H.R. 2296—in the U.S. House.  The bills would roll back unnecessary restrictions, correct errors, and codify longstanding congressional policies in the firearms arena.  These bipartisan bills are a vital step to modernize and improve BATFE operations.

Of highest importance, S. 941and H.R. 2296 totally rewrite the system of administrative penalties for licensed dealers, manufacturers and importers of firearms. Currently, for most violations, BATFE can only give a federal firearms license (FFL) holder a warning, or revoke his license.

S. 941 and H.R. 2296 would allow fines or license suspensions for less serious violations, while still allowing license revocation for the kind of serious violations that would block an investigation or put guns in the hands of criminals. This will help prevent the all-too-common situations where BATFE has revoked licenses for insignificant technical violations—such as improper use of abbreviations or filing records in the wrong order.

In other words, it appears that the Senate may actually focus on an area of bipartisan agreement: reforming BATFE regulation so that it makes sense and is easier to enforce properly.  That’s a commendable impulse, and hopefully a sign that the issue of 2nd Amendment rights has been fully settled by Heller and McDonald.  As long as Judiciary focuses on this task, firearms owners have nothing to fear from a full hearing on S941, except that a few gun-control advocates will obstruct this effort.


Related Posts:

Breaking on Hot Air

Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

Trackbacks/Pings

Trackback URL

Comments

I thought they were focused on jobs. I’m getting dizzy.

faraway on September 8, 2010 at 2:23 PM

About time this got fixed!

Dark-Star on September 8, 2010 at 2:23 PM

Anytime I read something on the 2nd, I get bent out of shape. I hope this is on the up and up.
L

letget on September 8, 2010 at 2:25 PM

The devil is always in the details. Stay tuned.

hillbillyjim on September 8, 2010 at 2:28 PM

So long as that committee membership including the Chairman maintain a 12 to 7 majority of Democrats, I don’t anticipate anything good coming from the Tues. meeting.

maverick muse on September 8, 2010 at 2:28 PM

Not my guns. I told the cops here in South Texas they might have to come get me if the feds want my guns. They assured me the feds might have to come get them too. We all agreed to hold up on my ranch.

The cops had some creative ways to deal with it. They suggested reporting them stolen and go hide them. Either way, I don’t see anyone coming to Texas to round up guns. There are far too many people here that would no way stand for it, including Rick Perry.

saiga on September 8, 2010 at 2:29 PM

Revises the definition of “willfully” for purposes of firearms violations and standards for criminal violations of firearms recordkeeping requirements.

Umm duh! They already HAVE a law like this in effect.

Requires the Attorney General to: (1) make preliminary determinations on firearms license applications and notify applicants in writing of a proposed denial; and (2) establish guidelines for ATF inspections, examinations, or investigations of possible firearms violations.

So for those States that have a CCL verifications, WTF does this have to do other then say they are doing a background check??

Permits an owner of a firearms business whose license is expired, surrendered, or revoked 60 days to liquidate inventory.

Umm they can via a friend who has a Licence to sell and distribute arms. That has been a law for a while as well.

Allows purchasers of existing firearms businesses the right to cure firearms violations attributable to such businesses.

AKA they can buy arms from the Police and ATF so the ATF can liquidate.

Allows the transfer, possession, and importation of machineguns for industry testing, training, and film production.

Wow.. YouTube!

Eliminates the requirement of written permission for the use of a handgun for lawful purposes by a minor (under age 18) where a parent or legal guardian is present at all times during such use.

Now THIS is dumb! Why would you not have the Parents or Guardians around? Sorry, I don’t approve of this.

Prohibits the Attorney General from electronically retrieving inactive firearms licensee information by name or personal identification code.

And this makes a difference in court cases? Not likely.

Directs the Attorney General to authorize the importation of all frames or receivers of rifles, or barrels for firearms other than handguns, if the importation is for repair or replacement purposes.

So you can order a upper for a M14 saying you need a replacement for a broken one, even if it isn’t?

Okay this law doesn’t makes any sense.

upinak on September 8, 2010 at 2:31 PM

Obama is bringing a knife to a gun fight.

faraway on September 8, 2010 at 2:33 PM

I have a RIGHT to bear arms, that means I shouldn’t need a License, period.

The BATF should be a convenience store, not a government agency.

MadDogF on September 8, 2010 at 2:35 PM

Ok. I sure do love how HA prevents posting when using certain links.
Hmmm..
Well here’s another link.
You need to read about this poor SOB in Austin, TX & what happened to him at a gun show there this summer.
It’ll blow your mind.

Badger40 on September 8, 2010 at 2:35 PM

All this pivoting is making me dizzy. No wonder O seems totally clueless and unhinged.

Monica on September 8, 2010 at 2:35 PM

The bill is designed to fix some serious problems, Perhaps the two most important: 1) BATF abuses in the enforcement division where penalties have no relationship to the magnitude of the problems. Performance reviews reward arbitrary decisions that produce numbers of enforcement actions. The result is costly disciplinary processes or even loss of licenses for minor paperwork errors. 2) Preventing unlawful access to firearms records that BATF has kept in violation of the law in the first place.

novaculus on September 8, 2010 at 2:36 PM

On the floor…it’s the additions..
give a little…take twice as much…time will tell…
I don’t trust any of em’.

jerrytbg on September 8, 2010 at 2:37 PM

owners have nothing to fear

Ed’s echoing FDR and the Bible:

We have nothing to fear but fear itself.
Fear not, for I bring tidings of great/commendable joy.

Committee Members

Patrick J. Leahy
Chairman, D-Vermont

Herb Kohl
D-Wisconsin

Jeff Sessions
Ranking Member, R-Alabama

Dianne Feinstein
D-California

Orrin G. Hatch
R-Utah

Russ Feingold
D-Wisconsin

Chuck Grassley
R-Iowa

Arlen Specter
D-Pennsylvania

Jon Kyl
R-Arizona

Chuck Schumer
D-New York

Lindsey Graham
R-South Carolina

Dick Durbin
D-Illinois

John Cornyn
R-Texas

Benjamin L. Cardin
D-Maryland

Tom Coburn
R-Oklahoma

Sheldon Whitehouse
D-Rhode Island

Amy Klobuchar
D-Minnesota

Ted Kaufman
D-Delaware

Al Franken
D-Minnesota

Among the Constitution’s saboteurs, count Feinstein, Feingold, Franken and smart@ss Lindsey Graham.

maverick muse on September 8, 2010 at 2:39 PM

We all agreed to hold up on my ranch.
saiga on September 8, 2010 at 2:29 PM

It happened in Australia. Though I guess ranchers out there get a gun for killing stuff.
If the feds were to ever come to our ranch here in SW ND, they would unfortunately find out all our Winchesters etc. were burned up in a fire doggone it.
Just try & find where they’re at.

I have a RIGHT to bear arms, that means I shouldn’t need a License, period.

MadDogF on September 8, 2010 at 2:35 PM

This needs to be a bumper sticker.
This is the REAL problem.
I am an American citizen, ergo it is an inalienable right from the 2nd that I posess firearms.
And it shouldn’t matter how many, or how much ammo.
Bcs as long as I’m law-biding, it ain’t none of the govt’s business WHAT I have on my property.

Badger40 on September 8, 2010 at 2:40 PM

Unless they’re meeting to abolish the ATF, beware.

SaintGeorgeGentile on September 8, 2010 at 2:44 PM

I have a RIGHT to bear arms, that means I shouldn’t need a License, period.
The BATF should be a convenience store, not a government agency.
MadDogF on September 8, 2010 at 2:35 PM

.
The license is not for the average person, but for those people who wish to own exotic or collectible weapons, manufacture weapons and ammo or to sell them as a business.

LincolntheHun on September 8, 2010 at 2:44 PM

The bill is designed to fix some serious problems, Perhaps the two most important: 1) BATF abuses in the enforcement division where penalties have no relationship to the magnitude of the problems. Performance reviews reward arbitrary decisions that produce numbers of enforcement actions. The result is costly disciplinary processes or even loss of licenses for minor paperwork errors. 2) Preventing unlawful access to firearms records that BATF has kept in violation of the law in the first place.

novaculus on September 8, 2010 at 2:36 PM

We could also say that about DOT regulations in the commercial shipping & trucking industry.
You cannot believe how many regulations there.
Let alone how many can contradict themselves.
We had a DOT guy audit my nephew’s commercial trucking set-up.
He told my nephew that if you drive within a 100 mi radius of your home base, you don’t have to keep a log book.
He said if you just show the Hwy Patrol the form, they can’t fine you for not having a log book.
And he said they will probably fine you anyway bcs none of them know about it.
How insane is stuff like this?
Get rid of all these useless laws & regulations.
Bare bones & common sense.

Badger40 on September 8, 2010 at 2:48 PM

The license is not for the average person, but for those people who wish to own exotic or collectible weapons, manufacture weapons and ammo or to sell them as a business.

LincolntheHun on September 8, 2010 at 2:44 PM

So why are concealed ‘permits’ required for the avg citizen?
Why are handgun permits required at all?

Badger40 on September 8, 2010 at 2:50 PM

Badger40 on September 8, 2010 at 2:35 PM

That’s Los Angeles’ former Police Chief turned Austin TX into make-it-up-as-you-go-along Marxist law enforcement in Travis County. In order to “win” the Austin position, in Los Angeles, Chief of Police Art Acevedo ordered arrests not to be recorded in order to feign he’d lowered crime stats. Naturally, he was welcomed with open arms by the moonbats and former Travis County DA Ronnie Earle, the man who refused to prosecute Tom DeLay after Earle fixed the grand jury, then conveniently retired leaving DeLay in limbo.

Acevedo is bad news all around, the worst from Fidel’s Cuba.

There was NO law to enable law enforcement to harass the law abiding TX gun show. And Ricky Perry didn’t want to touch Acevedo with a ten foot poll when asked in front of the rolling camera what he’d do as TX Governor for the victimized gun showman. You should have seen his eyes pop out at that question as he literally stepped away. Then his political savvy responded that if the gun show was legitimate, it sounded as if it were being bullied. But nothing was done to spank Acevedo’s wrists for bringing in thuggish G-Men.

maverick muse on September 8, 2010 at 2:53 PM

Among the Constitution’s saboteurs, count Feinstein, Feingold, Franken and smart@ss Lindsey Graham.

maverick muse on September 8, 2010 at 2:39 PM

You forgot Klobucher from MN.

Mirimichi on September 8, 2010 at 2:53 PM

Hey LincointheHun,
This may be one of those times we can mix fruit…

jerrytbg on September 8, 2010 at 2:54 PM

We could also say that about DOT regulations in the commercial shipping & trucking industry.

Badger40 on September 8, 2010 at 2:48 PM

Yep, mandatory quotas. When I used to drive truck, we knew which areas to try and avoid during which times. Now when I go to work in the morning I drive across the Gold Star Bridge here in CT and see the State Cops and the DOT working the bridge about 5-6 AM when the new “quotas” come out. If they pull over a truck, they will find violations. I don’t care if you have a brand new truck and trailer, they will find something wrong.

Johnnyreb on September 8, 2010 at 2:55 PM

Badger40 on September 8, 2010 at 2:50 PM
So why are concealed ‘permits’ required for the avg citizen?

That is a state issue, not federal.

Why are handgun permits required at all?

Don’t understand the question, your state may have some law about registering handguns or if you live in Chicago might do everything possible to not let you own one, but that is a local issue not federal.

LincolntheHun on September 8, 2010 at 2:55 PM

Badger40 on September 8, 2010 at 2:50 PM

Those good questions certainly deserve more than the obvious response below.

The only rational reason would be to ascertain that permit carriers have read the laws, heard the trainee’s lectures, and passed the target practice. Not to mention that a full set of fingerprints and home address are now on federal files.

maverick muse on September 8, 2010 at 2:58 PM

so the Miller case means nothing …ok, gotcha…

jerrytbg on September 8, 2010 at 2:58 PM

they will find something wrong.

Johnnyreb on September 8, 2010 at 2:55 PM

Remove that shine!

maverick muse on September 8, 2010 at 2:59 PM

You forgot Klobucher from MN.
Mirimichi on September 8, 2010 at 2:53 PM

Among

maverick muse on September 8, 2010 at 3:00 PM

Mirimichi on September 8, 2010 at 2:53 PM

/But fear not! Ed is here to say that all is well./

maverick muse on September 8, 2010 at 3:01 PM

The license is not for the average person, but for those people who wish to own exotic or collectible weapons, manufacture weapons and ammo or to sell them as a business.

LincolntheHun on September 8, 2010 at 2:44 PM

No, this license is for anyone who owns a rifle, hand gun, or other. Even in those “States” that do not require a license.

upinak on September 8, 2010 at 3:02 PM

You need to read about this poor SOB in Austin, TX & what happened to him at a gun show there this summer.
It’ll blow your mind.

Badger40 on September 8, 2010 at 2:35 PM

Hmmmmm. According to the article:

In a trial before Federal Judge Sam Sparks, government lawyers conceded Texas resident Paul Copeland did not know his buyer was an illegal alien, but the jury they should convict him anyway because he “had reasonable cause to believe” he was selling to an illegal alien because the two men and a boy who were present at his table at the time of the sale: 1) were Hispanic, 2) spoke Spanish, and 3) wore cowboy clothing. And the jury did as asked.

(emphasis mine)

So… The feds prosecuted this gun seller for NOT engaging in racial profiling, but at the same time, they are suing the state of Arizona to keep law enforcement officers from asking lawbreakers for documentation that they are in the US legally.

Makes perfect sense. In 0bamaworld, that is.

UltimateBob on September 8, 2010 at 3:03 PM

So why are concealed ‘permits’ required for the avg citizen?
Why are handgun permits required at all?

Badger40 on September 8, 2010 at 2:50 PM

Well Badger40, it depends on the State as you and I and our Hubbies know. But many don’t see this as a issue as they think the State will protect them against this law. Not going to happen.

upinak on September 8, 2010 at 3:04 PM

maverick muse on September 8, 2010 at 2:53 PM

I cannot believe no one would have the cajones to stand up to a thug like that in TX. Pathetically disgusting.

LincolntheHun on September 8, 2010 at 2:55 PM

I was to understand that SCOTUS ruled in favor of the 2nd when regarding gun ownership bans in cities, like DC & Chicago.
Why do the feds get to regulate firearms at all?
I understand permits are state issues.
But this goes against the 2nd if it makes it impossible for a law-biding citizen to obtain a gun.
Also, why do the feds have to run someone’s ID at all?
I understand some may think it keeps guns out of ‘bad’ people’s hands.
But I ask why all the regulation around something that is an enumerated right in the Const?

Badger40 on September 8, 2010 at 3:05 PM

UltimateBob on September 8, 2010 at 3:03 PM

Isn’t it just outrageous?
And the illegal was set free, with his illegally obtained license (or a fake-not sure which) & all.
I believe the illegal also got to keep the gun too!

No, this license is for anyone who owns a rifle, hand gun, or other. Even in those “States” that do not require a license.

upinak on September 8, 2010 at 3:02 PM

I do have to say I’m a little ignorant on the gun law thing as far as purchasing goes.
The last time I bought my own gun, a little .22 rifle, was back in Wyoming at a pawn shop & all they did was run my license & filled out a piece of paper with the usual ?s.
I was on my way, with the gun in my possession, in a few minutes.

Badger40 on September 8, 2010 at 3:08 PM

Allows the transfer, possession, and importation of machineguns for industry testing, training, and film production.

This needs to be expanded to C&R weapons for collectors: we are cutting up our FA history and destroying war relics. Now if this means I have to start producing instruction films on the procurement, care, use, and storage of TSMGs, then so be it. There is a community of owners out there that would love to expand the market to the poorer collectors… I am sure the first firearms dedicated film studio to make instructional films for the general public will get great backing. Perhaps the NRA and GOA would like to help in this…

Yes, things are finally looking up in America. But can we afford the ammo?

ajacksonian on September 8, 2010 at 3:09 PM

I don’t care if you have a brand new truck and trailer, they will find something wrong.

Johnnyreb on September 8, 2010 at 2:55 PM

Here in ND we’re a little lucky since my hubby runs a lot of gravel on the farm roads as well as part of the reservation to the S in SD, where the BIA doesn’t do anything.
But my nephews’s been running canola up N to Velva ND which is hwy & the DOT has been harassing the he!! out of everyone.
My nephew was lucky bcs my husband found some stuff they had to fix on his truck.
DOT would have shut him down.

Badger40 on September 8, 2010 at 3:11 PM

Badger40 on September 8, 2010 at 3:08 PM

From what I get out of this, and what my “dealer” explained to me, is that to “buy” a gun no matter what type, you have to do a background check (already there) and you will have to wait for the Federal release of the weapon to you, not the State.

This is a Federal “regulation” via the ATF and stupid NRA to us, it’s minion people… because they do not believe we should have guns.

This is just guns… ammo is next. ATF in charge of ammo… we are screwed.

upinak on September 8, 2010 at 3:13 PM

But can we afford the ammo?

ajacksonian on September 8, 2010 at 3:09 PM

Outlaw ammo.
Wah lah.
Not violating the 2nd technically.
But getting rid of guns.
I see them doing it.
Or pricing us out of it more than they have already.
Recall the recent EPA lead fiasco.
They’re sleeping on it.
They’ll bring it back with a vengeance.
Then bullets for a mere .22 will costs 5$ a piece.
Probably will even up the prices of BB’s & sharp objects in general.

Badger40 on September 8, 2010 at 3:14 PM

No, this license is for anyone who owns a rifle, hand gun, or other. Even in those “States” that do not require a license.
upinak on September 8, 2010 at 3:02 PM

.
Please explain, ’cause I know of a license for importing, manufacture, selling as a biz, owning exotic, but not one for owning a Savage 30-06.

LincolntheHun on September 8, 2010 at 3:15 PM

upinak on September 8, 2010 at 3:13 PM

I think I gotta go to gunsmithing school.
Of course they are probably the 1st on the list for re-education camps.

Badger40 on September 8, 2010 at 3:16 PM

LincolntheHun on September 8, 2010 at 3:15 PM

I consider a ‘permit’ nothing but another name for a license.
I buy a ‘permit’ to drive our non-commercial semi when driving on public roads.
I buy a ‘license’ to drive it on roads in general.
A permit = a license.

Badger40 on September 8, 2010 at 3:17 PM

upinak,

The majority of this bill is to clarify existing laws that are on the book.

The parent law is to provide military people under 18 years old and young competitors to train without the needs for a parent.

You can already order any parts expect the primary receiver (serial number) without the needs of FFL.

You need a NFA tax stamp for each machinegun or NFA items.

Police already sell their used guns to gunshops. It’s good money for the police because they can use the money to buy needed equipments.

jdun on September 8, 2010 at 3:23 PM

Badger40 on September 8, 2010 at 3:05 PM
I was to understand that SCOTUS ruled in favor of the 2nd when regarding gun ownership bans in cities, like DC & Chicago. I understand permits are state issues.
But this goes against the 2nd if it makes it impossible for a law-biding citizen to obtain a gun.

Yes but those Govts are trying to circumvent that ruling. Some times Govts help, usually not.

Why do the feds get to regulate firearms at all?

Partly for taxes, partly to keep skinheads with 5 felonies from buying a fully automatic ak-47 at Walmart (extreme example I know), building silencers in their garage/ fortress of solitude

Also, why do the feds have to run someone’s ID at all?

To verify you’re not a felon, and we use electronics to bypass “5 day waiting periods” that libs had set up.

But I ask why all the regulation around something that is an enumerated right in the Const?

Because there are no absolutes in the Constitution

LincolntheHun on September 8, 2010 at 3:23 PM

You would think jobs would be the issue … Except after listening to Obama today, he is all out of gas ….

tarpon on September 8, 2010 at 3:24 PM

Please explain, ’cause I know of a license for importing, manufacture, selling as a biz, owning exotic, but not one for owning a Savage 30-06.

LincolntheHun on September 8, 2010 at 3:15 PM

I do not need to order a upper for a M14 through a gun dealer. You do realize that no everyone has to do that. Under this bill you will need too.

jdun on September 8, 2010 at 3:23 PM

Umm how many STUPID people can’t figure out the laws concerning guns? It is obviously just the law makers!

I don’t NEED the laws to be clarified, do you? DO you have issues understanding them?

The parent law is to provide military people under 18 years old and young competitors to train without the needs for a parent.

When a Parent SIGNS for the “child” to go into the Military… the child is then concidered an adult. Did you know that?

You can already order any parts expect the primary receiver (serial number) without the needs of FFL.

You need a NFA tax stamp for each machinegun or NFA items.

Depends on the State. I ordered a upper and a lower, and I didn’t have to go through a FFL here in my State. In some states you have to go through both a FFL where you live and where they order. To “Import” is to import it from other couontries. Do you have a bunch of russian rifles you need parts too?

Police already sell their used guns to gunshops. It’s good money for the police because they can use the money to buy needed equipments.

I said it depends on the State. The Police and Troopers up here go through private Dealers with FFL known licenses. They do not go through the shops because the dealers get them more money.

upinak on September 8, 2010 at 3:30 PM

Unless they’re meeting to abolish the ATF, beware.

SaintGeorgeGentile on September 8, 2010 at 2:44 PM

upinak on September 8, 2010 at 3:30 PM

I don’t think its so much a simplification as it should be removal of ambiguity.

Personally I would much rather see the agency de-funded and melted back into a department of the IRS for fee collection and gun laws be handled by the states…

liquidflorian on September 8, 2010 at 3:47 PM

Personally I would much rather see the agency de-funded and melted back into a department of the IRS for fee collection and gun laws be handled by the states…

liquidflorian on September 8, 2010 at 3:47 PM

Couldn’t agree more!

upinak on September 8, 2010 at 3:49 PM

Absolutely, guys… the solution to this problem is the elimination of the the BATFE.

deepdiver on September 8, 2010 at 3:56 PM

Because there are no absolutes in the Constitution

LincolntheHun on September 8, 2010 at 3:23 PM

I would say that there are.
They really are pretty absolute.
Not to mention short & to the point.
How more absolute does the Constitution & its associated Amendments need to really be?
A lawyer is not needed to read it & get the message.
But the govt has made us think like lemmings that we need a lawyer to ‘interpret’ it.
And no amount of regulation keeps guns out of the hands of criminals.
In the end, it is up to society to do this.
Know thy neighbor.
This is why the kids around where I live don’t really get into bad trouble.
Bcs everyone will tell you what they saw your kid doing & when necessary, they’ll tell your kid to stop bad behavior right away.
ll this regulation has done is make criminals out of law biding citizens.

Badger40 on September 8, 2010 at 4:08 PM

liquidflorian on September 8, 2010 at 3:47 PM
upinak on September 8, 2010 at 3:49 PM
deepdiver on September 8, 2010 at 3:56 PM

.
So which agency are you planning on having handle the explosives part of the BATFE
or the Alcohol issues
or the federal part of gun issues
or the international part of gun issues (worked with them in Iraq)
And thanks a whole lot for putting me in the position of having to defend the BATFEs existence.

LincolntheHun on September 8, 2010 at 4:09 PM

the IRS for fee collection and gun laws be handled by the states…

liquidflorian on September 8, 2010 at 3:47 PM

I agree except for the fee part.
Everyone who is a citizen without a criminal record should not be hindered bcs of fees in owning a firearm.
All these fees have done is price the common man out of his legal right to own a firearm.
Meanwhile, criminals just steal more $$ to buy them illegally.
Go figure.

Badger40 on September 8, 2010 at 4:11 PM

Why not have the military handle explosives?
How about NOBODY needs to be handling tobacco OR alcohol?
Slippery slope.
It’s gotten ridiculous.

Badger40 on September 8, 2010 at 4:12 PM

And thanks a whole lot for putting me in the position of having to defend the BATFEs existence.

LincolntheHun on September 8, 2010 at 4:09 PM

No Lincoln, we didn’t.

There shouldn’t be a federal or international part of gun issues. The Federal Government needs to stay out of my gun cabinet. The State is about all I need to worry about.

Alcohol/tabacoo issues? Wouldn’t that be more inclined to worry about illegal drugs?

As for international regulatory… Well knowing Obama he may hire a new czar.

I don’t like this one bit. But giving it to the ATF is not my idea of a good idea.

upinak on September 8, 2010 at 4:17 PM

Why not have the military handle explosives?
Badger40 on September 8, 2010 at 4:12 PM

.
Posse commitatus the rest of your post was too silly to respond to.

LincolntheHun on September 8, 2010 at 4:17 PM

Posse commitatus the rest of your post was too silly to respond to.

LincolntheHun on September 8, 2010 at 4:17 PM

Stop being a Jerk concerning this. You want the ATF… have at it, with the rest of the NRA fools. I and Badger do not.

upinak on September 8, 2010 at 4:18 PM

Posse commitatus the rest of your post was too silly to respond to.

LincolntheHun on September 8, 2010 at 4:17 PM

That act was for military against enforcing state law as far as I am to understand. So maybe explosives sohuld not be a state matter, but a national security matter considering they are not firearms.
And I guess you consider anything too silly to respond to that you cannot formulate an articulted opinion about.
Way to go there sport.

Badger40 on September 8, 2010 at 4:22 PM

An American Eagle?

Nothing like a good Gangster Gat…

mojo on September 8, 2010 at 4:23 PM

upinak on September 8, 2010 at 4:17 PM
There shouldn’t be a federal or international part of gun issues. The Federal Government needs to stay out of my gun cabinet. The State is about all I need to worry about.

.
If that were true then how would one buy a weapon made in another country?

Alcohol/tabacoo issues? Wouldn’t that be more inclined to worry about illegal drugs?

Conceptually you could shift this to DEA but you would still have somebody checking to make sure I don’t become the bourbon king with out coughing up cash and not endangering my neighbors.

As for international regulatory… Well knowing Obama he may hire a new czar.

.
Someone has to verify that the French aren’t selling Saddam weapons, and gathering the evidence that they did.

I don’t like this one bit. But giving it to the ATF is not my idea of a good idea.

.
I’m still pissed that the Clinton gun laws allows the county to use zoning laws to keep me from selling extra ammo I reload. It’s an imperfect agency, they all are.
The agency is not the problem, the law makers are the ones passing poor conflicting legislation.

LincolntheHun on September 8, 2010 at 4:25 PM

And I guess you consider anything too silly to respond to that you cannot formulate an articulted opinion about.
Way to go there sport.
Badger40 on September 8, 2010 at 4:22 PM

.
I’ve never considered Caveat Emptor to be a wise policy.
If you make soda someone will make sure your rat flavored soda doesn’t contain real rats.
Same with any other ingested substance, if you sell across state lines then it becomes a federal problem.
.
I don’t “want” the BATFE, but I do see someone has to do that job.
What I do want is better federal legislation, that is where the real problem is; you guys are blaming the cops for writing traffic tickets, not the politicians for allowing a speed trap to exist.

LincolntheHun on September 8, 2010 at 4:34 PM

if you sell across state lines then it becomes a federal problem.
.
I don’t “want” the BATFE, but I do see someone has to do that job.
What I do want is better federal legislation, that is where the real problem is; you guys are blaming the cops for writing traffic tickets, not the politicians for allowing a speed trap to exist.

LincolntheHun on September 8, 2010 at 4:34 PM

If I sell liquor in state, then hopefully it is not regulated by the feds, but I highly doubt that is the case.
And even though the Feds are allowed to regulate interstate commerce, why have we allowed them to regulate things like alcohol & tobacco to the point of insanity? I know-sin taxes.
And that gave us the Whiskey Rebellion. And I might have been one of those in that rebellion bcs it’s onerous.
And if you don’t ‘want’ the BATFE, how ’bout the EPA?
USDA?
They are ALL the same. They are the govt.
It is the onerous & tiresome & huge amounts of regulations on things that are the problem.
I agree the govt is there to be a referee. But they don’t do their job when we are all stupid enough to let people into power that should not be there.
And it all comes down to personal responsibility & your civic duty.
Get rid of these agencies & people will step up to the plate.
The gun industry never needed any regulation.
Communities needed to stop putting their faith in the govt to protect themselves.

Badger40 on September 8, 2010 at 5:31 PM

Yes, things are finally looking up in America. But can we afford the ammo?

ajacksonian on September 8, 2010 at 3:09 PM

I’m busy making more .223 as I write this :) I recently shot a few hundred rounds and I’m replacing them with fresh reloads. Maybe they will start pulling a few teeth from the BATFE, if we are lucky.

Mini-14 on September 8, 2010 at 5:31 PM

And BTW Lincoln- the rat flavored soda-notice the mess of labeling laws.
We can’t even get the govt to implement it’s own law: COOL.
Right now I am paying in Beef Checkoff $$-$1/head I sell, to advertise EVERYONE’s beef: Australia’s, Canada’s, Mexico’s, etc.
The mushroom checkoff was found to be political speech & they couldn’t force producers to pay it.
So why do I have to pay to advertise foreign beef?
Why can’t the govt implement COOL?
Bcs someone is wining & dining them not to.
It’s all about accountability in our public servants.
Which is why the less regs the better.
I am increasingly understanding that NO GOVT is better than a little.

Badger40 on September 8, 2010 at 5:34 PM

I am increasingly understanding that NO GOVT is better than a little.

Badger40 on September 8, 2010 at 5:34 PM

Amen! I couldn’t say it better myself!

Mini-14 on September 8, 2010 at 5:52 PM

Badger40 on September 8, 2010 at 5:34 PM

If you were only closer I would be buying my meat from you.

That sounds SO wrong LOL!

upinak on September 8, 2010 at 6:28 PM

upinak,

Some of the laws on ATF book are contradiction. This bill will clear some of those. You email two ATF lawyers and both might give you different answers.

What I think the machinegun law was design to do is allow NFA items in non-NFA state for industry testing, training, and film production.

Public and private gun range cannot allow military personnel under 18 to use a pistol without a parent there. I live in the largest military base in the world and it happens a lot when you got kids under 18 that can’t train with the group. Military personnel aren’t exempt going to non-military range for training.

Police used guns go through FFL dealers. That’s always been the cases. It’s not private to private transfer.

jdun on September 8, 2010 at 6:52 PM

That being said the feds do want our guns. And the advent of a progressive regime reminds us of why we should never give our guns away. They are small enough protection as it is.

Sherman1864 on September 8, 2010 at 8:25 PM

You have two and three quarters of Constitution loving people on that committee.

The rest of them either hate it, or can easily be bought or persuaded to ignore it.

I see no actual good coming out of this committee. They might accidentally improve a few insignificant things, but the net effect will undoubtedly be a net loss to citizens.

LegendHasIt on September 9, 2010 at 12:24 AM