What are we paying them for, anyway?

Suppose you were going to fund a federal agency to the tune of $852 million (2004). Suppose you were going to empower that agency to conduct testing and enforcement operations in pursuit of both tax revenue and criminal convictions of those caught violating the law. Suppose that that agency would be responsible for classifying particularly dangerous items, with felony charges and hundreds of thousands of dollars in fines resting on whether a particular item was classified properly (and whether that could be proven in a court of law beyond a reasonable doubt). Wouldn't you expect that agency to develop some standardized scientific tests in order to fulfill its duties consistently and accurately?

Yeah, me too.

Would you say that a testing process that could make or break a felony conviction had better be fair, reliable, and predictable, in order to satisfy the Constitutional requirement for equal protection of the law?

Sure, I would too.

So why exactly does the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives get a free pass?

If you asked ex-President Clinton with the aid of truth serum, you might get an answer something like "because that agency is in charge of harassing and intimidating gun owners, not enforcing the law."

Well, we've been putting up with the BATFE's misadventures for much too long, and the Jews for the Preservation of Firearms Ownership have started to score some serious points. You see, obtaining convictions based on "arbitrary and made-up standards" is a little bit unConstitutional. And it's time we started to apply pressure.

Thanks to the efforts of the JPFO, the Congressional Research Service has issued a report, which leads with this paragraph:

This memorandum has been written in response to several congressional inquiries about firearms testing procedures employed by the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives (ATF), and whether those procedures are outlined in a manual. Regarding this matter, ATF officials have informed the Congressional Research Service that there is no single "firearms testing procedures manual," given the wide variety of firearms available in both legal and illegal markets. Critics of ATF, who have requested congressional verification as to whether such a manual exists, have questioned the adequacy of ATF firearms testing procedures -- particularly in regard to machine guns and other firearms regulated under the National Firearms Act. To address issues raised by ATF critics, Representative Phil Gingrey has introduced the Fairness in Firearm Testing Act (H.R. 1603) that would require ATF to make video recordings of all firearms and ammunition tests.

Now that's a real scorcher of a memorandum, despite the weasal words the ATF insisted on. And it's a good idea to thank Congressman Phil Gingrey for his efforts (gingrey.ga@mail.house.gov). Hat tip to SaysUncle for the original story.

Posted on 2005-11-01 18:50:40.0 by matthew@triggerfinger.org

Check the groups below and enter your email address to receive updates by email:

The trackback URL for this entry is: http://triggerfinger.org/weblog/servlet/trackback/6830

No trackbacks have been posted so far.

No comments have been posted so far.