Patting the ATF on the back

[The Freeholder]

If any of you have followed the thread in Legal, you'll know that the ATF (or at least some former agents) are not among my favorite people right now.

But I'm a big believer in credit where credit is due, so I have to tell you this one.

On 4/5, I put the application for my C&R FFL in the mailbox. Today, 4/20, I have a blue envelope in my mailbox containing my C&R FFL.

Needless to say, I'm quite stoked, but I'm also appreciative of the faceless worker(s) of the AFT who processed my app so quickly. Especially when so many others here have waited so long for theirs to arrive.

You may guess what's on my to-do list for tomorrow.

 

[GreenFurniture]

What's on your "to do list" for tomorrow? Hmmmmm, lemme guess, run to Kinkos and make a few hundred copies, buy a huge roll of stamps and mail the 'file copy' of your FFL to every C&R distributor and wholesale house you can think of? Then start buying up all the wonderful historical weapons you fancy, delivered right to your very own door!?!!?!

Yeah, that's what I would do too.

 

[Billy Sparks]

Altough my renewal time wasn't as fast it was well before my license expired. I paid my renewal fees with a credit card and I noticed they had double charged me. Before I could call them they (the ATF) had already fixed is with my credit card company.

 

[TallPine]

Of course, it would be even nicer if you could just order any gun you wanted through the mail like it was before 1968.

But then, I guess a little lubrication is nice ...

 

[The Freeholder]

Of course, it would be even nicer if you could just order any gun you wanted through the mail like it was before 1968.

Please don't remind me. I was a young nipper then, but I remember the magazine ads for the 20mm anti-tank rifles. Must have been nice....

 

[armedandsafe]

Read the first half of "Unintended Consequences." It makes me cry every time I read it. Partly because we can't, anymore, and partly because I didn't, then.

Pops

 

[Jim K]

Believe it or not, BATFE employees are human beings. There are two sides of BATFE, the bureaucrats who check out applicants (licenses, transfers, whatever), and the investigators and enforcement agents. Some of the latter are tough cookies because they have to be. Others are decent folks trying to enforce poorly written laws that were foisted on them. No matter what some people seem to think, BATFE no more writes the gun laws than the IRS writes the income tax laws. They just get stuck with trying to enforce them. (The predecessor of BATFE was once part of the IRS, since Federal gun laws are disguised - by Congress - as revenue raising measures.)

Several years ago, BATFE enforcement had a lot of what saner people in the bureau called "cowboys", the guys who loved dressing up in black and seemed to delight in the idea of killing people. After Ruby Ridge and Waco, the bureau moved toward getting rid of the worst of the "cowboys" and reining in the others. That does not mean that BATFE agents are patsies, or that they won't enforce the law and defend themselves. But the bureau is trying to strike a balance between enforcing the laws and serving the law-abiding public. It is not always easy, and some agents still go overboard.

But ranting about "the laws BATFE makes" shows a deep misunderstanding of the way things work in this country. BATFE does not make laws; it can, as allowed by law, make certain regulations, but those regulations cannot go beyond the law. If you don't think machineguns should be regulated, tell your Congressman or Senator. If you think the ban on new machineguns is wrong, don't complain about BATFE "making laws". Tell your elected representatives in Congress.

Jim

 

[buzz_knox]

Actually, given that the agency charged with responsibility for enforcing a law is given considerable deference in interpreting that law, you can easily get federal regulations that go beyond the scope of the law itself. It's done routinely in the employment law and environmental areas. And getting a judge to look past the deference and find that the reg exceeds the scope is an iffy thing.

 

[Jim K]

Congress throws in that business about "the Secretary may make such rules as necessary" to avoid getting too deep into the nitty-gritty of technical laws. I can understand that. I agree that it is sometimes difficult to say if a specific regulation goes beyond the law, but generally the administrators try to keep within the bounds, as they don't want Congress on their backs.

Of course, if the law is sloppily written (as many are) the regulators have a lot more leeway and often decide to leave it up to the courts if the regs are OK or not. Keeps the lawyers in business, and almost all Congressmen and Senators are lawyers. Just a little job security, that's all.

Jim