Bill Introduced: ATF Elimination Act H.R. 5522

[Berger.Fan222]

Every step toward smaller government is a positive step, even if there are temporary inconveniences.

 

[Tirod]

The Senator introduced a bill to eliminate the ATF, the news media actually reported on it, and that in itself is a big step forward from the past. It actually gets people thinking and discussing it. The BATF is an unnecessary and duplicative agency who's recent track record is less than good. NOW is the time to bring it up when there ARE issues to discuss and some leverage can be exercised.

Sitting back and smugly prophesizing no good will come of it is accepting the evil we know. For some that's better than the potential improvements.

When CCW was considered in FL, there were naysayers among the shooting community, did they never apply? When Washington state finally made possessing NFA weapons legal did the frustrated buyers reject the change?When Missouri accepted silencers as legal when hunting did sales remain flat?

All the naysayers line right up and pays their money to enjoy what someone else worked to get for them. They don't often get their words thrown back in their face.

Lots of rhetorical questions, the point is some need an attitude check about politics. It's not from the unflagging support of naysayers that we got most of the country under a CCW permit in the last 30 years. That was accomplished by people who ignored their friends and neighbors telling them it would never happen.

They say the same thing about National Reciprocity, and yet we are just a few votes shy of passing it out of Congress and putting it in front of a President. We've gone from the average assessment of "yeah, sure, when pigs fly" to "It's likely to be signed into law in the next administration."

Nobody ever remembers they were dead set against improving our Rights as shooters. Never said it. We don't dredge up old posts and PM them.

The victors just enjoy what they brought about and share. And those who said it won't ever happen might remark, well, who'da thought? Few ever say "thank you."

Don't worry, it's expected.

 

[dogtown tom]

Tirod The Senator introduced a bill to eliminate the ATF, the news media actually reported on it, and that in itself is a big step forward from the past.

Were there previous bills to eliminate ATF that were ignored by the media?

It actually gets people thinking and discussing it. The BATF is an unnecessary and duplicative agency who's recent track record is less than good.

It gets "people thinking and discussing it" because its pathetic pandering by a congressman. If he REALLY wanted to get rid of ATF he should be aware that the NFA and GCA are the reason for the ATF. I don't doubt in the least that he knows exactly that........but he's relying on you and a few others to get excited at the prospect of ATF disappearing. Throw in the media exposure and he's created exactly what he wants (which is publicity). He doesn't give two hoots about federal gun laws or the ATF......he just wants your votes and a boost to his appeal as a firearms friendly politician.


Until the NFA and GCA are repealed, the ATF isn't just necessary, it's required.
As far as "duplicative"........you are mistaken. ATF is tasked with regulation of the firearms industry...........care to name those federal agencies who do that as well?

There may be crossover in ATF criminal investigations with FBI, DEA, etc., but that happens with every Federal and state agency. An example of this at the local level is bank robbery. It's a Federal crime so the FBI as well as local and state LE will be involved............yet no one is calling that a duplicative agency.

NOW is the time to bring it up when there ARE issues to discuss and some leverage can be exercised.

Geeze............there have been issues to discuss on ATF since day one! And the same could be said for the FBI, Secret service, DEA, EPA, CIA, IRS an every other alphabet agency in the Federal government.

And if you consider his "ATF Elimination Act" as "leverage".......It won't make it out of committee. Some leverage.

Sitting back and smugly prophesizing no good will come of it is accepting the evil we know. For some that's better than the potential improvements

.
It's REALITY friend. And it doesn't require any smugness to know that getting rid of ATF doesn't get rid of Federal law. ATF if eliminated, will just have those employees and responsibilities folded into the FBI or Homeland Security......and pray tell how does that fix the problem?

When CCW was considered in FL, there were naysayers among the shooting community, did they never apply? When Washington state finally made possessing NFA weapons legal did the frustrated buyers reject the change?When Missouri accepted silencers as legal when hunting did sales remain flat?

An illogical analogy. Do you understand the difference between LAWS and the agencies that enforce regulations?
Apparently not, because what you mention above has nothing to do with regulatory agencies, but laws passed by those states.

All the naysayers line right up and pays their money to enjoy what someone else worked to get for them. They don't often get their words thrown back in their face.

I spend plenty of $$$ to help bona fide legislative lobbying for gun rights.....but I won't give a nickel to pandering politicians nor will I fall for such publicity stunts that do nothing. I'm glad to see that a majority of THR members can recognize a phony, pandering politician seeking publicity.

Lots of rhetorical questions, the point is some need an attitude check about politics. It's not from the unflagging support of naysayers that we got most of the country under a CCW permit in the last 30 years. That was accomplished by people who ignored their friends and neighbors telling them it would never happen.

Hogwash.
While your friends and neighbors may have told you it would never happen, in Texas it was a steamroller.

And I don't need an "attitude check" about politics. It is pretty darn insulting for you to accuse those of us (who see this bill as pandering) as in need of an attitude check. I would suggest that those who think this bill has a chance are politically naïve and easily duped by politicians.

They say the same thing about National Reciprocity, and yet we are just a few votes shy of passing it out of Congress and putting it in front of a President.

Again, that is LAW.
And if you think it will get signed............ahh forget it. I'll let you dream.

We've gone from the average assessment of "yeah, sure, when pigs fly" to "It's likely to be signed into law in the next administration."

Only if that next administration is gun friendly. And so far it ain't looking any different than the last forty administrations.

Nobody ever remembers they were dead set against improving our Rights as shooters. Never said it. We don't dredge up old posts and PM them.

The victors just enjoy what they brought about and share. And those who said it won't ever happen might remark, well, who'da thought? Few ever say "thank you."

Don't worry, it's expected.

My, my, my what a high horse.

 

[CoalTrain49]

The BATF may go away, or at least part of it, along with some other agencies in the near future. The funding may not be there for them to continue to maintain the same size they are now. The military is shrinking considerably right now because of sequestration. The fed gov't hasn't yet, but it will. The 2016 budget will likely hit the BATF, along with some other DOJ agencies pretty hard. DHS is already seeing a budget crises that will only get much worse. They won't downsize willingly, but they will downsize.

 

[Tirod]

Dgotown, if it pleases you to beat down my arguments that the BATF could be potentially disbanded, then sit back and feel good about the great work you did.

It accomplishes nothing other than to establish your credibility. Apparently you feel the need to put down someone else rather than contribute to the end result - which would be the way we were before the 68 GCA.

As explicitly detailed over decades, what the BATF is enforcing comes down to naught - evil people still get guns and perpetrate acts of violence. Frankly, defending the BATF by discussing the normal operation of politics and the slow change of law only contributes all the more to a false sense that the government can solve all our problems if we only hand over all our rights to them.

Directly or indirectly, it's an admission that a large and onerous government is something you prefer. Better an bureaucrat sitting on his high horse telling you when you can build a SBR, or own a silencer, or even possess both to defend your home and family?

But it's ok for the same goverment to equip the police to use them searching your home for "illegal" weapons, which has and can be done? Plenty of our citizens are under the thread with new anti assault rifle laws passed.

No, we should just give up trying to own our government, tell our elected representatives go ahead and do what you want, then sit back and wait for armed thieves to assault and beat us - the way people in Australia and Britain do now?

If you aren't willing to at least contribute in the fight to support our 2d Amendment rights and drag down others to wallow in gloom and servitude, that's on you.

I'm trying to recover the freedoms we exercised before politicians sold them out for votes. I don't see where anything mentioned in your posts contributes to that. We are already well aware of the forces deployed against freedom.

Their "fifth columinsts" post here attacking our goals every day.

 

[alsaqr]

Sensenbrenner is pandering to his base, nothing more.

Where was Sensenbrenner and his proposal to eliminate the BATFE when his party ran the US house, US senate and the white house? During that time Sensenbrenner did a net nothing for our gun rights.

Now that the elimination of the BATFE does not stand a chance of becoming law Sensenbrenner is suddenly invigorated. Yeah, right.

 

[george burns]

It would be nice, but won't happen.

 

[dogtown tom]

Tirod Dgotown, if it pleases you to beat down my arguments that the BATF could be potentially disbanded, then sit back and feel good about the great work you did.

Snarky admonishments aren't an argument. If opposing opinions hurts your feelings then don't post in public forums.
If you think I beat down your arguments then maybe you need to actually post something that can withstand public scrutiny.

It accomplishes nothing other than to establish your credibility.

My credibility? Does that mean you agree with me?

Apparently you feel the need to put down someone else rather than contribute to the end result - which would be the way we were before the 68 GCA.

I didn't "put down" anyone, but I did disagree with you and the Congressman. If you feel my disagreement is a put down then you really have no business posting your views in a public forum do you? There are a number of forum members that think the ATF Elimination Act is political pandering so I guess I'm in good company.

As explicitly detailed over decades, what the BATF is enforcing comes down to naught - evil people still get guns and perpetrate acts of violence. Frankly, defending the BATF by discussing the normal operation of politics and the slow change of law only contributes all the more to a false sense that the government can solve all our problems if we only hand over all our rights to them.

Again you confuse elimination of the evil ATF vs elimination of the evil Federal gun laws. Unless the gun laws are repealed there will always be a Federal agency to be your devil.

No one in this thread has mentioned anything about handing over "our rights" to anyone. Instead it's almost universal agreement that this congressman's bill is nothing but political pandering.

You think it awesome, I think it a joke that accomplishes nothing.

Directly or indirectly, it's an admission that a large and onerous government is something you prefer.

Your smart enough to know that isn't close to being accurate. if you'll reread what others and I have written you'll see near unanimous support for getting rid of the federal laws that make the ATF necessary.

Better an bureaucrat sitting on his high horse telling you when you can build a SBR, or own a silencer, or even possess both to defend your home and family?

Hold on friend..............those laws and regulations aren't affected by your beloved ATF Elimination Act are they? Do you even understand your own argument?

But it's ok for the same goverment to equip the police to use them searching your home for "illegal" weapons, which has and can be done? Plenty of our citizens are under the thread with new anti assault rifle laws passed.

Uh what?
This paragraph needs rewriting as it makes no sense.

No, we should just give up trying to own our government, tell our elected representatives go ahead and do what you want, then sit back and wait for armed thieves to assault and beat us - the way people in Australia and Britain do now?

Sorry, but our firearm freedoms are better now than ten years ago. Where have you been?

If you aren't willing to at least contribute in the fight to support our 2d Amendment rights and drag down others to wallow in gloom and servitude, that's on you.

I do contribute.........to the NRA-ILA. But this thread isn't about contributions to Second Amendment causes, it's about a feel good bill that accomplishes nothing. It's about a congressman pandering to voters, playing on their ignorance of Federal law.

Sorry bub, ain't no wallowing going on in Texas.

I'm trying to recover the freedoms we exercised before politicians sold them out for votes. I don't see where anything mentioned in your posts contributes to that. We are already well aware of the forces deployed against freedom.

Then you didn't read very close. I've said repeatedly that eliminating or repealing Federal firearms laws will eliminate "the evil" you love to speak of. This bill does not....its a waste of time and resources.

Their "fifth columinsts" post here attacking our goals every day.

So I'm a fifth columnist now? Good grief man..... can you respond to an argument without resorting to such petty nonsense?

I would argue that your beloved congressman is really an anti, being that his ATF Elimination Act doesn't change a single Federal law or regulation.

Do you disagree?

 

[Elkins45]

If you aren't willing to at least contribute in the fight to support our 2d Amendment rights and drag down others to wallow in gloom and servitude, that's on you.

I'm trying to recover the freedoms we exercised before politicians sold them out for votes. I don't see where anything mentioned in your posts contributes to that. We are already well aware of the forces deployed against freedom.

Their "fifth columinsts" post here attacking our goals every day.

If the ATF elimination bill were passed and signed you would recover not one single freedom.

NOT ONE.


This is not up for debate. It is a simple matter of fact, but somehow you have come to the understanding that the ATF creates these laws. It does not. You can keep painting yourself as a hero for supporting this meaningless legislation all you like, but those of us who actually understand the structure of government and the legislative process aren't buying it.

I'm willing to be proven wrong. Please tell me what specific freedom I will have restored if the law passes. Will I have the freedom to convert my AR-15 to a machine gun? Nope. Make an SBR without a tax stamp? Nope. Sell a gun to a friend in another state without going through an FFL? Again, nope.

Until the laws are gone then I don't particularly care who enforces them.

 

[dogtown tom]

So Tirod............who are those "Fifth Columnists"?

From the link in the OP:

......The idea of eliminating the ATF is not new. It was last introduced by U.S. Rep. John Conyers (D-Mich.) in 1993......

Yeah, John Conyers the great advocate of Second Amendment rights
http://www.ontheissues.org/MI/John_Conyers_Gun_Control.htm

The idea of folding the ATF into other agencies has been endorsed by the left-leaning think tank Center for American Progress.....

Even these kooks like Sensenbrenners bill:
http://www.americanprogress.org/issues/guns-crime/view/





While Conyers and the CAP are well known opponents of the right to keep and bear arms, the NSSF is definitely not. (The NSSF is the firearms industry trade group, best known for hosting the SHOT Show and for their lobbying efforts to Congress)

In a statement, National Sports Shooting Foundation spokesman Michael Bazinet said reassigning agency duties of will not make the government more efficient.

"The opposite would more likely occur," the statement said. "NSSF does not favor abolishing ATF and would much prefer the agency be funded at the level required to best carry out its appropriate responsibilities."

Odd, isn't it Tirod.........that Conyers and CAP love this bill, yet NSSF does not?

 

[Gun Master]

ATF Elimination From Firearms Control

It is not the ATF that is the problem. They have done an admirable job administrating the "mess" that was thrown at them.

The problem (as I see it) is the boondoggle of federal laws that hamstring the average American citizen, in practicing his 2nd Amendment rights, "to keep and bear arms".

I am not familiar with the proposer of H.R. 5522, but the timing of the proposal is suspect. Election year approaches. He may be "pure as the driven snow", but that is up to his electorate.

Who knows what problems may develop if the FBI administers federal laws pertaining to firearms. We are more comfortable with the known than the unknown.

Let's vote for the bills, and the representatives sponsoring those bills, that eliminate all the unnecessary garbage attached to those laws.

Sure, I'm for doing background checks on felons and other sensible ways of preventing crime.

Let's be responsible and vote for the law (or curbing of the law), and vote for the representative who supports rational implementation or deletion of those laws.

 

[Nicky Santoro]

The idea of disbanding the ATF and folding the functions into the FBI or another Fed agency was kicked around some years ago. At the time the FBI agreed to absorb the functions but didn't want the ATF personnel so it went nowhere.

 

[Berger.Fan222]

The idea of disbanding the ATF and folding the functions into the FBI or another Fed agency was kicked around some years ago. At the time the FBI agreed to absorb the functions but didn't want the ATF personnel so it went nowhere.

This is a good point. If a big part of the problem is the culture of disrespect for the rule of law and the presumption of innocence among the employees of one agency, absorbing these problem employees into another agency may not improve the rule of law as much as hoped for. An en masse termination of agency employees may be needed to serve the noble goal of the rule of law.

 

[PapaGrune]

I think several agencies should be higher on the list than the BATF, plus a couple of amendments to the Constitution too. NO need to go into this on the current thread.

I think the BATF is not the problem like some say, I agree its the laws. I just hope the CDC and EPA do not get their dirty hands on guns, like some people have been pushing for.

Good discussion.

 

[Gun Master]

I think several agencies should be higher on the list than the BATF, plus a couple of amendments to the Constitution too. NO need to go into this on the current thread.

I think the BATF is not the problem like some say, I agree its the laws. I just hope the CDC and EPA do not get their dirty hands on guns, like some people have been pushing for.

Good discussion.

Ditto !

See posting # 36 .

 

[WestKentucky]

A government collapse? No way. We will find wars to fight and diseases to get into a fizz over before we let anything like that happen. All we need is a distraction to string together what is failing long enough to get us through til the next guy takes over and does the same.

It's too political for discussion here but my take on half or more of this nations problems are media entity related. We have "news" agencies reporting opinion as fact and using scare tactics for political benefit just to boost the viewer numbers and squeeze a few more dollars out of anheuser busch for 2 more commercials that means one less minute of them doing whatever it is that they think their job is and not reporting the damned news. Put media back on the right path and the nation will follow. Let them continue their current trends and...well...more Obama and Clinton types in office, bigger government and smaller people.

 

[Field Tester]

If the ATF elimination bill were passed and signed you would recover not one single freedom.

NOT ONE.


This is not up for debate. It is a simple matter of fact, but somehow you have come to the understanding that the ATF creates these laws. It does not. You can keep painting yourself as a hero for supporting this meaningless legislation all you like, but those of us who actually understand the structure of government and the legislative process aren't buying it.

I'm willing to be proven wrong. Please tell me what specific freedom I will have restored if the law passes. Will I have the freedom to convert my AR-15 to a machine gun? Nope. Make an SBR without a tax stamp? Nope. Sell a gun to a friend in another state without going through an FFL? Again, nope.

Until the laws are gone then I don't particularly care who enforces them.

Yes and no.
Dogtown is correct in that it changes nothing in existing laws. Another agency will still enforce the laws on the books.

The only thing it might change is the BATFE's seeming unregulated nature. There are many instances where the have changed their mind on what is legal and what isn't. It appears as if they have no oversight.
But it's unknown if another agency will continue to act in a similar manner.

I think effort would better be spent on reform or outright repeal of several laws as well as better oversight and clear regulation with regard to the BATFE.

 

[Gun Master]

Bashing Current Gun Laws

I am for protecting 2nd Amendment rights, but hey, this isn't the 1950's, or any time prior.

This all started when JFK, his brother Robert, and MLK were assassinated in the mid-1960's. It was obvious that something needed to be done, to keep every kook with a grudge, from being able to get a gun so easily.

"Times They Were a-Changing".

Heck, in the early 1960's, I'd mail order and pickup : Astra 400's, Enfield Rifles, Webley revolvers, etc. at the local Railway Express. Those were the days!

I detest having to have a background check, every time I want to buy a gun. This should be changed for the honest citizen.

Some gun laws are necessary, now. Others, are not, and some need a little (or a lot) of tweaking.

 

[45_auto]

I detest having to have a background check, every time I want to buy a gun. This should be changed for the honest citizen.

How does a store (or person) selling a gun tell if a citizen is honest or dishonest without doing a background check?

 

[Armor Snail]

Someone possessing a gun doesn't bother me.
What we do to them when they commit a crime with it is what concerns me.
If we had real penalties then crime would subside.

 

[happygeek]

Some gun laws are necessary, now.

You believe the 1968 GCA lowered the homicide rate?

 

[Gun Master]

How does a store (or person) selling a gun tell if a citizen is honest or dishonest without doing a background check?

Once a BG check has been done, you could have an ID card, etc. that could be updated from time to time, similar to CCW Permits that are now in force, or another process that doesn't require a check "each time you buy a gun". It could be worked out, if done properly. I don't profess to have all the answers, but believe it "can" be done.

 

[Gun Master]

You believe the 1968 GCA lowered the homicide rate?

Possibly, but this is not a "yes" or "no" answerable question, like the courtroom lawyers attempt to do on TV or in films.

First, let me refer back to my posting # 43 (above). You cited my first sentence in the last paragraph, namely "Some gun laws are necessary now". This was taken out of context, and should also show the next sentence following it, to not be misleading, "Others are not, and some need a little (or a lot) of tweaking".

Statistics can be misleading, and some people have even said you can prove "anything" you want to, using them, depending on one's agenda.

Homicides had been on the rise since the late 1950's, and had two spikes in the 1980'2 and 1990's. One might conclude, since murder continued to increase after 1968, the GCA was ineffectual. Murder is not solely dependent on the GCA (or any other one single factor), but I wish it were that simple.

According to FBI statistics (per 100,000 population), the rate in 1950 was 4.6 . In 2011 and 2012 it was almost the same, 4.7 . The highest since 1950 was 9.8 in 1981 and 1991. It actually has been decreasing in recent years.

Who knows what the rate would be, if it were not for the GCA ? Anybody's guess, IMHO .

 

[happygeek]

So I take it you don't have any proof the 68 GCA accomplished anything?

Possibly, but this is not a "yes" or "no" answerable question, like the courtroom lawyers attempt to do on TV or in films.

We'll have to agree to disagree on that one. If a gun control scheme doesn't lower the homicide rate ... well, then what's the point?

 

[Gun Master]

1968 gca

You are correct re: your 1st question. As previously noted, I admitted I didn't have all the answers. Also, statistics are not always conclusive.

Maybe you can shed some light on why the 1950's and the 2011-2012 homicide rates are essentially the same, with the 1968 GCA in between those two eras ?

The GCA prohibits felons, drug addicts, mental defectives, etc....and other undesirables from purchasing firearms. I am aware that those beings are able to obtain guns from other sources, but should we make it legal for them to buy guns ?