H.R. 5092
Via GunLawNews, comes a bit by The Outdoor Wire (scroll down a bit) on an act to modernize and reform ATF. Some highlights:
H.R. 5092 revises the current enforcement system , including expanding the currently limited options for administrative penalties applied to licensed dealers, manufacturers and importers of firearms. Todatm for most violations, BATFE has only two options: issue FFL holders a warning, or revoke the license. 5092’s “modernization” would allow a series of clearly-stated fines and/or license suspensions for less serious violations; limiting license revocation to serious criminal violations that could potentially block criminal investigations or put guns in the hands of criminals.
Equally significant is 5092’s apparent intention to clarify the standard for violations. The proposed legislation allowing penalties for “intentional, purposeful violations of the law” but not for simple paperwork mistakes. The bill also improves the due process under which BATFE imposes these penalties; allowing for appeal of BATFE penalties to a neutral administrative law judge – rather than to an employee of BATFE itself. A frequent criticism from observers is that BATFE is incapable – or unwilling – to hear appeals in an unbiased manner.
In 1986, Congress passed the Firearms Owners’ Protection Act, believing these problems were corrected with that passage. Instead, the government has ignored the FOPA, even arguing in court the changes were “without practical significance.”
…
H.R. 5092 also speaks to one of the continual criticisms of the BATFE by gunsmiths: the Bureau spends too-much time and effort investigating gunsmiths instead of investigating “real” criminals.
H.R. 5092 would focus BATFE’s enforcement efforts on violations of firearms, explosives, arson, alcohol and tobacco laws, rather than non-jurisdictional areas.
Simply put it would clarify BATFE’s purpose by directing efforts toward criminals, removing the firearms industry from what they now characterize as their status “low-hanging fruit” for ATF enforcement efforts.
Another baby step.
April 11th, 2006 at 2:45 pm
In 1986, Congress passed the Firearms Owners’ Protection Act, believing these problems were corrected with that passage. Instead, the government has ignored the FOPA, even arguing in court the changes were “without practical significance.”
Heh… do you think they’d buy that defense if one of us got caught with a post ’86 machine gun? Unbelievable.
April 11th, 2006 at 7:15 pm
Heh, the “without practical significance” argument was explicitly rejected for the Hughes Amendment because Congress literally cannot enact a law that does nothing. But when the ATF wants to argue that the law doesnt apply to it, the rule is thrown out the window. Same FOPA, different rules for the king and the peasants.
I think this is a bigger step in the right direction than 5005. I wouldnt mind seeing both pass, though I think 5005 needs to have further clarification of what happens to machine guns owned under the new provisions of 922(o) if those conditions are no longer true. What if you form a security company or an ammo manufacturing company and then acquire post 86 MGs? Will you be allowed to retain them when your contract expires? How about when your ammo manufacturer FFL expires?
April 11th, 2006 at 7:18 pm
So yeah, I am flip-flopping on 5005 IF we clarify it so that guns owned under the new exemptions of 5005 can be retained by the licensee once they have been lawfully transferred.
April 12th, 2006 at 12:23 am
Why do I have that gut-fealing that whatever they pass is going to somehow just enable the ATF more?
C.H.
April 12th, 2006 at 1:34 am
They want gun owners to turn out for the 06 election. If they screw us, that isnt going to win votes, is it?
September 13th, 2006 at 8:28 am
[…] HR 5092 (see prior coverage here) is drawing the ire of some pro-gun groups: “- Unlike HR 1603 … HR 5092 does not require the videotaping of BATFE firearm tests, which would ensure these tests are conducted fairly and competently.” […]