Relax: Senate Gun Hearing Isn’t What You Think
Everyone take a deep breath. The Senate Judiciary Committee isn’t conspiring to strip you of your Second Amendment rights, nor put the heads of licensed gun dealers on the chopping block. Of course, this nebulous hearing announcement touted by the Drudge Report didn’t help things.
September 7, 2010
NOTICE OF COMMITTEE HEARING
The Senate Committee on the Judiciary has scheduled a hearing entitled “Firearms in Commerce: Assessing the Need for Reform in the Federal Regulatory Process” for Tuesday, September 14, 2010 at 10:00 a.m. in Room 226 of the Dirksen Senate Office Building.
By order of the Chairman.
Reaction on the Internet was filled with suspicion. Shooting sports news hub Ammoland noted the cryptic notice, and speculated that “an unfriendly Senate committee” must be “up to no good with regards to your Second Amendment rights.” On message boards, both the Freepers and Hannity fans assumed that the meeting was a spiteful plot by anti-gun politicians to pass restrictions on gun dealers before Democrats presumably lose the House, and possibly the Senate, in November elections. Blogs echoed these concerns, and considering what Congress has screwed up so far this year, being suspicious of the motives behind the meeting is certainly warranted.
The thing is, gun restrictions aren’t the purpose of the hearing at all.
A quick email to a congressional contact confirmed that the purpose of the meeting is to discuss the regulation of federal firearms licensees (FFLs) by the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives (ATF). The purpose is to discuss Senate Bill S. 941 and House Bill H.R. 2296, known jointly as the “Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives Reform and Firearms Modernization Act of 2009.”
The purpose of the bill isn’t to restrict the rights of gun dealers or gun buyers. Instead, it was designed to address the inadequacies of existing regulations and give the ATF more flexibility in dealing with dealers that have been found to have committed minor violations. The poorly written current laws give ATF agents very restricted options. Essentially, they can either ignore infractions with a warning, or go the draconian route of stripping the dealer of his license entirely and forcing him out of business for something as petty as misfiled paperwork.
The bill has strong support from shooting sports watchdogs, including the National Rifle Association’s Institute for Legislative Action (NRA-ILA) and the National Shooting Sports Foundation (NSSF).
The NRA-ILA has remarked:
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. 941 and H.R. 2296 totally rewrites the system of administrative penalties for licensed dealers, manufacturers, and importers of firearms. Today, for most violations, BATFE can only give a federal firearms license (FFL) holder a warning, or totally 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 prevents 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.
Better if they just abolished BATFE and started over.
Concur. The BATFE is the police in charge of what is legal. It is legal to produce and consume alcohol, it is legal to grow and consume tobacco, it is legal to manufacture, own and use firearms. It is legal to produce and use explosives. The explosives investigation part should go back to the FBI. Regulation within states can be accomplished within states. Regulation on interstate commerce of firearms should not happen, because of the 2nd amendment. States regulations must show a compelling need, because of the 14th. There should be a rebuttable presumption of unconstitutionality for all firearms regulations that prevent firearm ownership, and out of state persons should not be more regulated than their home state because of the P AND I clause protecting the rights of people traveling from other states.
Agree. Abolish the BATF and fire everyone working for it, no reassignments.
It is rife with anti-Constitutional authority figures. Rather than giving them new jobs where they can seek to hurt American citizens we need to teach them all a firm lesson. Take a gun away, serve fast food for the rest of your life.
For those who had anything at all do with WACO jail sentences for conspiracy to commit mass murder.
But why start over?
The BATF has focused itself on making criminals of legitimate, lawful citizens and running like frightened little children from anything to do with prosecuting real bad people. How many gang members, with previous felony convictions, have had federal gun charges filed on them when caught with a firearm?
Not nearly as many as should be.
You want to regulate alcohol taxes? Ok. Want to regulate tobacco taxes? Ok. But no involvement in firearms in the Treasury department, ever. Repeal all the federal gun laws back to the GCA of 1935.
Abolish them? Absolutely.
How many times has a bill been hijacked? How often does a law accomplish it’s intended goal? When this Bill is voted on I’ll bet there will be at least one more temple erected to another ego driven political hack.
Are you high?
“The purpose of the bill isn’t to restrict the rights of gun dealers or gun buyers….”
Of course not…..just as “assault weapon” bans never had any impact on “legitimate sportsmen”, right?
“Instead, it was designed to address the inadequacies of existing regulations…”
Yes of course! the current 65,0000 existing regulations on my RIGHTS are somehow “inadequate”, and we need MORE
Remember, but for Constitutional imperetives that FORCE states to overturn bans (my right to “keep”)and issue concealed carry laws (my right to “bear”), there is NOTHING any legislative body anywhere in this country will EVER do that supports our right to be armed.
Every legistlator aspires for the power, prestiege and perks of National Office, and they’re all part of “the machine” that thinks THEY are in charge of our lives. That why they went INTO that line of work to begin with.
A free, self sufficient armed citizenry is an affront to their mind set. They CAN never and WILL never respect our 2nd Amendment rights, because it takes POWER AWAY FROM THEM.
That is why everywhere in America, they always go easy on typical gangbang shooters (crime increases the need for government), and put every self every family/homeowner self-defense shooter through hell. (They had the GALL to act rather than wait for Government Intervention)
This bill is yet another stealth attempt to control through “revised” regulations AT THE SOURCE OF RETAIL SALES, the “who, where, when” and ultimately “IF” scenarios any of us may be permitted to obtain arms,
When it comes to the “intent” of a piece of legislation, everything they say is a lie, including “and” and “the”
IS there ANYTHING that this regime has done that merits trusting them?!?
No. None. This is an attempt to take back door action to remove our gun rights; anyone who falls for this is WRONG.
Refuse to comply.
There are some good prospects in the bill if it stays clean and as drafted to this point. The hurdles to remain that way are huge in the Senate and House, and it is rare to get a good bill through as it was drafted and submitted. The FA ban was inserted into legislation and had little to do with it, and was not in the original… yet one Congresscritter got a favor and the American people were done a disfavor. Strange that no such ban was needed for decades prior to that: somehow the Republic not only surivived, but prospered. Of course that was true of the original Alcohol Tax Revenuers got molded into the modern BATFE.
And we are still stuck with the insanity of antique firearms having a date start classification of before 1898… yet every other collectible group has a range that shifts over time so that as things get older they become antiques. C&R arms start at 50 years ago and then go back to the antique range, thus it floats over time. Would not a relatively sane system put a 50 year C&R window and then let items antique out over time at 100 years? If the Congress feels that it needs to delineate what is or is not an antique, can they at least consult the particular community involved to get its input on the subject? One Size Fits All but Fits None Well…
The problem (in the governments eyes) with curios relics and antiques is that firearms technology really became efficient with the perfection of the self contained metalic cartridge around the turn of the (last) century.
I collect Civil War breachloaders… strange, unique early “cartridge” weapons that are “fun” and interesting examples of the evolution of design ideas. I consider these true “antiques” because the operating mechanisms are no longer used. They are like Steam Engines compared to gasoline power.
However, a 1903 Springfield, although now more than 100 years old and somewhat “clunky” to wield, is exactly as “dangerous” and effective as any bolt action hunting rifle produced today, because the basic design mechanics are the same. Ditto for most any bolt action military arm of the last 100 years that fires a metalic cartridge arm.
Now that semi-autos (I prefer the term self-loading) have been common-place for roughly 50-75 years, the delema (for the gun banning government, not me) is that these “antiques” are fairly modern and still quite effective in their principal role of rapid, accurate aimed fire. Hense the governments reluctence to import surplus Garands and .30 carbines from Korea. They do not want anything to have anything less than the highest “retail-modern” level of restriction/traceability.
They want us to be “sportsmen”, fur hat wearing “re-enactors” practicing some harmless historical passion play. They DONT want us to have anything MODERN that WORKS.
Yes, in the world of select-fire MP5′s a .30 carbine is a bit antiquated…
A bit, but not COMPLETELY, and thats why nothing that fires a metalic cartridge will get “downgraded” to curio, relic or antique staus ever again.
(I do not support this rationale, I only observe it)
Indeed: The year 1898 was not picked at random, or at least it just happens to be the official date for the 1898 Mauser, which was a notable improvement on the 1893 model which gave us much grief during the Spanish-American War and which to many defined the modern battle rifle until the development of semiauto ones like the Garand.
The 1903 Springfield you mention was largely a copy of it (the US lost a series of patent lawsuits and had to pay significant penalties and royalties to Mauser Werke) and I had the use of one while I was growing up. I’d feel entirely adequately equipped if I had a well build and in good condition version of either.
Yup, nothing beats a solidly built crank-handle chambered in a mans caliber for getting the job done, any time, any place, any range, in any conditions.
For all the emphasis on firepower remember, its hits that count! Best delivered from beyond the range/abilities of the spray and pray morons you are going up against (terrorists and/or Fascist Law Enforcement drones as the case may be)
Thats why Marines train with rifles at 500 yards with Iron Sights. If we can SEE you at all, youre dead.
Arty, air support? Nice to have, but not required.
It was rifles, always rifles that won the day when the day seemed lost.
Sic Semper Tyranus
*”The thing is, gun restrictions aren’t the purpose of the hearing at all.”
A politician’s promise? When has the federal government passed up an opportunity to further erode our freedoms, whether speech, arms, or property? If you own a weapon, you’re guilty until proved innocent, and they will withhold evidence and muzzle your expert testimony to ensure the conviction. A shoelace and a rubber band or a malfunctioning rifle is an “automatic weapon”.
Let them have their hearings. The more they talk, the less they actually do.
Forgive me if I retain my cynicism. . . .The Feds have for a long time been anti 2nd Amendment. I don’t expect any change now. . . .sadly, when the NRA sold us out to protect themselves, I put them in the category of FINO-Freedom Loving in Name Only. I have let my membership with them expire, and prefer to support groups like Grassroots GunRights.
I do not for one minute believe the Democrats have changed their views on the Second Amendment and gun ownership. Even if they’re not up to no good this time, it never hurts to remind them that they’re being watched. Closely.
Oh, well I feel so much better now. The BATFE should definately have more discretion when it comes to FA dealers. They’ve done so well in the past.
/sarc off
I will believe this will be harmless when I see what comes out of both the Committee and Congress as a whole. The anti-gun/anti-freedom people haven’t given up and will work hard to see that their goal of removing all firearms from civilian hands occurs.
Sorry, I believe the basic premise is incorrect. BATF can indeed fine FFL licensees for minor errors in paperwork, or even for no errors at all, and has been doing so for years.
A local 01 FFL licensee had a problem; the BATF compliance inspector fined him for having his license filled out incorrectly – “Massachusetts” was misspelled. The licensee kept sending in for new licenses, they invariably came through with “Massachusetts” misspelled, and he was fined every year. BATF eventually realized that the problem was theirs – their little girl who typed up the licenses simply couldn’t spell. (Well, nobody ever claimed that the BATF was staffed with America’s “best and brightest.” On the other hand, my own FFL licenses have never had this particular problem.) BATF did eventually refund the fine payments. The Compliance inspectors tend to be petulant and nasty; perhaps it’s because some are frustrated men who really want to be cop types in Enforcement, not accounting types in Compliance, and they take it out on the customer; or perhaps because BATF assigns areas to Field Offices in a bizarre way, similar to the way Congressional districts are gerrymandered, so that by the time they arrive at a licensee’ premises for an inspection, they’ve been driving for six hours or more, and are a bit peevish. Hard to say.
On the national front, recall that the dealer which was on record as owning the Bushmaster rifle used by the DC Sniper was fined because the dealership’s records failed to show that the gun was no longer located at the dealer’s premises. Whether it had been stolen, or sold surreptitiously, or whatever, I don’t think is known even today. In that case, perhaps he should have been shut down – losing (or “losing”) a rifle later used to commit several murders is a far cry from having a license with a misspelled word, and would seem to call for somewhat more draconian law-enforcement action.
As for the “purpose” of the hearing, we know from experience that that has little to do with the final results. Recall how the Firearm Owner’s Protection Act of 1987 was perverted.
Great one Bob Owens a photo of a “six pack of Beer” for your gun article.
Alcohol and Guns just another Brilliant Bob Owens moment for all to see.
Thankfully it isn’t marijuana like back in the old school days, hey Bob?
Great idea for your next “hey notice me i wanna be somebody Bob Owens article” Marijuana and Guns in California the Bob Owens history story……..
Alcohol and Guns, just Brilliant Bob, just Brilliant.