Aguila Blanca
11th July 2009, 12:44
Not a surprise. Most of us already know this, but I stumbled upon a stark reminder. I was reading a post on a firearms site and decided to read up on the Youth Handgun Safety Act of 1994. One of the links provided by Google was the following:
http://www.usdoj.gov/archive/opd/AppendixC.htm
Scroll down to Part III. I was mildly incensed to see that the BATFE publicly regards the Firearms Owners' Protection Act of 1986 as "A step backwards." In other words, a Federal law intended to ensure that citizens retain at least a shred of their Constitutional right to keep and bear arms is viewed by the BATFE as a bad thing rather than a good thing.
One of the things they complain about is that, because of the law, "A notable effect of FOPA was to direct ATF's enforcement efforts away from the legal and illegal firearms markets, and toward creating programs that sought primarily to identify, prosecute and punish violent criminals who used firearms in crime." Imagine that! The agency tasked with enforcing firearms laws is complaining that the law caused them to shift their emphasis away from bothering legal firearms activities and, instead, to focus on apprehending criminals. Oh, the pain!
Let's look at some of the other things they complain about. They are upset because that law:
Allowed FFLs to temporarily conduct business away from their normal place of business, such as at organized gun shows;
So what? They still function under the same laws, and they still keep the same records. What's the problem here?
Narrowed the scope of those who "engage in the business" of dealing in firearms (and are therefore required to have a license) to include only those who devote "time, attention, and labor to dealing in firearms as a regular course of trade or business with the principal objective of livelihood and profit through the repetitive purchase and resale of firearms." Significantly, FOPA excluded those who buy and sell firearms to "enhance a personal collection" or for a "hobby," or who "sell all or part of a personal collection." The complex definition made it difficult to identify illegal dealers who claim that they are merely "hobbyists" or trading firearms from their personal collection;
Another "So what?" So the people who regulate businesses engaging in firearms are now constrained to not classify as a "business" someone who is not engaged in a business. If the BATFE had not been so over-zealous about calling anyone who ever thought about selling a gun a "dealer," this provision would not (and should not) have been necessary.
Allowed a convicted felon to obtain firearms where the convicting jurisdiction automatically restored the felons' civi
This one is especially galling. They complain that a person whose rights have been restored would actually be allowed to practice a basic Constitutional right. Considering that even non-violent, non-firearms-related felonies like embezzlement or passing bad checks can result in a felony conviction that would forever disenfranchise the criminal from exercising the RKBA, I fail to see a problem with this.
Prohibited ATF from conducting more than one warrantless compliance inspection of a licensee in any 12-month period;
Darn that pesky Constitution, anyway! Rather than complain that they can conduct "only" one warrantless (i.e. unconstitutional) search each year, they should be overjoyed that they get even one ... because there's no provision in the Constitution for them to conduct ANY warrantless searches.
Required the government to prove either a "knowing" or "willful" state of mind for all GCA violations;
They apparently prefer to rigidly enforce the dictum that "Ignorance of the law is no excuse." They don't like it that they have to show that a violator actually intended to break the law. They'd much prefer to just make up rules on an ad hoc basis and than whack innocent people with felony charges for engaging in actions the person didn't know were illegal. Put down "RI" on your Form 4473 instead of "Rhode Island"? Ten years in the Federal pen, pal.
I hated the BATFE before but, having read this, I hate it a lot more now.
http://www.usdoj.gov/archive/opd/AppendixC.htm
Scroll down to Part III. I was mildly incensed to see that the BATFE publicly regards the Firearms Owners' Protection Act of 1986 as "A step backwards." In other words, a Federal law intended to ensure that citizens retain at least a shred of their Constitutional right to keep and bear arms is viewed by the BATFE as a bad thing rather than a good thing.
One of the things they complain about is that, because of the law, "A notable effect of FOPA was to direct ATF's enforcement efforts away from the legal and illegal firearms markets, and toward creating programs that sought primarily to identify, prosecute and punish violent criminals who used firearms in crime." Imagine that! The agency tasked with enforcing firearms laws is complaining that the law caused them to shift their emphasis away from bothering legal firearms activities and, instead, to focus on apprehending criminals. Oh, the pain!
Let's look at some of the other things they complain about. They are upset because that law:
Allowed FFLs to temporarily conduct business away from their normal place of business, such as at organized gun shows;
So what? They still function under the same laws, and they still keep the same records. What's the problem here?
Narrowed the scope of those who "engage in the business" of dealing in firearms (and are therefore required to have a license) to include only those who devote "time, attention, and labor to dealing in firearms as a regular course of trade or business with the principal objective of livelihood and profit through the repetitive purchase and resale of firearms." Significantly, FOPA excluded those who buy and sell firearms to "enhance a personal collection" or for a "hobby," or who "sell all or part of a personal collection." The complex definition made it difficult to identify illegal dealers who claim that they are merely "hobbyists" or trading firearms from their personal collection;
Another "So what?" So the people who regulate businesses engaging in firearms are now constrained to not classify as a "business" someone who is not engaged in a business. If the BATFE had not been so over-zealous about calling anyone who ever thought about selling a gun a "dealer," this provision would not (and should not) have been necessary.
Allowed a convicted felon to obtain firearms where the convicting jurisdiction automatically restored the felons' civi
This one is especially galling. They complain that a person whose rights have been restored would actually be allowed to practice a basic Constitutional right. Considering that even non-violent, non-firearms-related felonies like embezzlement or passing bad checks can result in a felony conviction that would forever disenfranchise the criminal from exercising the RKBA, I fail to see a problem with this.
Prohibited ATF from conducting more than one warrantless compliance inspection of a licensee in any 12-month period;
Darn that pesky Constitution, anyway! Rather than complain that they can conduct "only" one warrantless (i.e. unconstitutional) search each year, they should be overjoyed that they get even one ... because there's no provision in the Constitution for them to conduct ANY warrantless searches.
Required the government to prove either a "knowing" or "willful" state of mind for all GCA violations;
They apparently prefer to rigidly enforce the dictum that "Ignorance of the law is no excuse." They don't like it that they have to show that a violator actually intended to break the law. They'd much prefer to just make up rules on an ad hoc basis and than whack innocent people with felony charges for engaging in actions the person didn't know were illegal. Put down "RI" on your Form 4473 instead of "Rhode Island"? Ten years in the Federal pen, pal.
I hated the BATFE before but, having read this, I hate it a lot more now.