On September 26, 2006, the house passed H. R. 5092 to modernize the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (BATFE). The bill passed 277-131. As a public school grad, I know that that is nearly a two to one margin. I also know, Republicans hold about a 30 seat majority of the 435 member of the house. So, I know that at least 1 Democrat must have voted for the bill. The actual break down is:
213 Reps, 63 Dems, 1 Ind voting yea
8 Reps, 123 Dems voting nay
24 pillars of integrity and courage of their convictions were caught in the bathroom and tight elections during the vote and so took the high road and abstained. 9 were Reps, 15 were Dems.
On the whole and given the division between the two parties these days, one might say that H.R. 5092 enjoyed fairly wide bipartisan support. That is unless you happen to be a left leaning buffoon who happens to draw his meager pay check from a liberal fish wrap like the Ft. Wayne Journal-Gazette. Then you consult the “ban all firearms immediately” Brady web site to see what you ought to think about the bill. After seeing Brady opposed the bill, you reflexively lift a few of the most idiotic arguments from their web page, add in a few new invectives of your own, predict chaos in the streets and publish it as an editorial.
Since Ft. Wayne is already after your smokes, I figure our guns, beers and Big Macs can’t be far behind – so Lex weighed-in (If you’re starved for time cut to the last paragraph):
Dear Editor,
Whoever wrote the tripe on H.R. 5092 should be fired. They so misstated what the bill will accomplish, it’s obvious they pulled a release from the Brady web page rather than actually read the bill. Your OpEd is 180 degrees out of phase.
Rather than hamper the BATFE, the main point of H.R. 5092 was to give the BATFE additional tools to deal with Federal Firearms Licensees (FFLs) that violate the law. Before H.R. 5092 the BATFE could only issue a warning or revoke the license. This bill allows for fines and/or license suspensions for less serious violations, while allowing license revocation for more serious violations that would put illegal guns in the hands of criminals. H.R. 5092 also clarifies the standard for violations. It allows penalties for intentional, purposeful violations of the law, but not for simple paperwork mistakes which was the all or nothing approach of the previous law. The law also allows for FFLs to appeal BATFE judgments to a judge rather than the BATFE. That ought to seem reasonable enough to anyone interested in justice.
All of this demonstrates why the Brady study, the flimsy hook upon which your error heavy editorial hangs, has been determined to be a shame. Among other things, it never took into account the 90% of violators who never challenged – due lack of money – the BATFE findings. The study also compares an onerous federal government more interested in stopping legal gun purchases than terrorists under President Clinton to a more constitutionally restrained BATFE under President Bush. Surprise, surprise, the BATFE under Clinton found more paper work violations and put otherwise honest FFLs out business.
Of course the whole point of the Brady study could be made moot if the congress would pass the NRA supported instant firearms checks using technology similar to credit card transactions. Where do Brady and J-G stand on that? Brady has never been for simplifying the legal purchase of firearms or even preventing illegal firearms purchases. Brady is interested in just one thing - banning firearms.
Also, it would be nice to be able to believe what is printed in the J-G. But as part of the MSM that brought us rigged exploding pickups, fake (forged is too elegant a word) National Guard papers, photo shopped war pictures and terrorists propaganda pictures, unfortunately you have placed the burden of proof on your readers rather than your reporters. To turn a phrase of a great American, people can’t trust, they must verify what is in the MSM these days.
I’d like to believe that the Federal Law Enforcement Officers Association came out against the bill, but a search of their web site using H.R. 5092 as search criteria produced a whopping 0 documents found. Even the Brady site has no letter of support from FLEOA. So while FLEOA may have opposed the bill, their opposition wasn’t vigorous enough to share on their own or even the Brady web site. Meanwhile, what is found on the Brady web site is eerily similar to your OpEd.
Oh yeah, in the off chance that you’re right about H.R. 5092, I guess there is only one thing left to do. Go buy a gun to protect yourself from all of those illegal guns that are going to be out there.
Regards,
Doug Schumick
No comments:
Post a Comment