TexasCHLforum.com

> Tuesday, December 4, 2007
>
>
> "We'll miss him in Massachusetts, but he'll be a strong leader at
> ATF, and I look forward to working with him on key issues on gun
> control." -- Senator Ted Kennedy
>
>
> The above quote highlights all you need to know about Michael
> Sullivan, the acting director of the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco,
> Firearms and Explosives.
>
> Sullivan was, unfortunately, nominated by President Bush to
> permanently take over ATF this year. Right before Thanksgiving, the
> Senate "hotlined" his name for unanimous consent approval.
> (Hotlining is a parliamentary maneuver which allows non-controversial
> bills or nominations to be unanimously approved by the Senate without
> debate or a vote.)
>
> GOA immediately sent a letter to each Senator's office, urging them
> to oppose the Sullivan nomination. Thankfully, one senator
> subsequently objected to Sullivan's approval, and his nomination was
> put on hold. However, that legislator is now coming under fire from
> other senators, who are asking him to withdraw his "hold."
>
> That's why it's important for gun owners to contact their two
> Senators. Under Sullivan's leadership, the ATF has gone berserk.
> Sure, the problems at ATF didn't originate with him, but Sullivan has
> certainly done nothing to put out the fire.
>
> While discussing the agency's 2008 appropriations bill, the House
> Commerce & Justice committee issued a stinging rebuke for the ATF:
>
> "The committee has heard reports that ATF has pursued license
> revocations and denials against firearms dealers based on violations
> that consist largely of recordkeeping errors of various types that
> are unlikely to impede tracing investigations or prosecution of
> individuals who use firearms in crime. The Committee encourages ATF
> to consider lesser gradation of sanctions for recordkeeping errors."
> [House Committee report on HR 3093.]
>
> The strategy, that was begun long before Sullivan arrived, has
> continued unabated under his tutelage. ATF inspectors try to find
> any violation they can, usually focusing on clerical mistakes.
>
> A family gun business that had been in operation for years in
> Baltimore, Maryland was attacked because of the "wanton, repeated
> crime" of abbreviating Baltimore as "Blto" on the teeny,
> tiny spaces
> on the 4473 forms.
>
> Now, the agency has turned their collective guns on Red's Trading
> Post in Idaho, among others. Even though one ATF agent told the
> manager that Red's was "one of the best small gun shops" he'd ever
> seen, the ATF has continued its assault on this gun shop (which has
> been in business for decades) for minor clerical mistakes and failing
> to put up a poster.
>
> According to WorldNetDaily, one judge who is familiar with the Red's
> Trading Post case found "the ATF speaks of violations found during
> the inspections of 2000 and 2005, but fails to reveal that additional
> investigations in 2001 and 2007 revealed no violations or problems."
> The judge also noted the ATF was exaggerating the situation by
> "double counting" some violations.
>
> The agency holds a continuing animus against gun owners and dealers.
> Inspectors have no handbook under which to operate, and the absence
> of such written procedures allows them to be arbitrary and
> capricious.
>
> Americans don't need an anti-gun cop from Massachusetts as the
> Director of the federal gun police.
>
> CONTACT: Please ask your Senators to oppose anti-gunner Michael
> Sullivan as the Director of the BATFE. You can use the pre-written
> message below and send it as an e-mail by visiting the GOA
> Legislative Action Center at http://www.gunowners.org/activism.htm
> (where phone and fax numbers are also available).

I got that email and I'm honestly not sure what to think about it. Sure it is someone who could do more and better things at the ATF, but is he really doing things wrong or is he just a manager doing the status quo? Although the praise from Kennedy is alarming...

I find it difficult to believe that a Federal LE agencies inspectors "have no handbook under which to operate".

Makes me suspicious of the rest of the article. I am NOT saying that I think the ATF is without mistakes or doesn't sometimes go overboard.

while the praise from Kennedy might be cause for a closer look, I wouldn't give it cause for alarm. Most Senators will back and support any nonpolitical nomination from anyone from their state. Him being from Massachusetts doesn't mean much either. But he situation at Reds and in Baltimore is outright silly vindictiveness. The abuse has been going on for years and Sullivan hasn'tdone anything to make it better. This Sullivan guy is obviously a terrible choice. I wonder what the NRA stand is in this. It seems as though they would be taking a stand on this issue. Is it too controversial? One thing is pretty clear Sullivan is not on the side of gun shops.

txinvestigator wrote:I find it difficult to believe that a Federal LE agencies inspectors "have no handbook under which to operate".

It really doesn't matter if they have a "handbook". ATF inspectors have both the law and the Constitution to go by, and they wantonly ignore both.

txinvestigator wrote:I find it difficult to believe that a Federal LE agencies inspectors "have no handbook under which to operate".

I recently read through an Inspector General report on the ATF's operations, I believe it was dated around 2003 or so. One of the findings was that the ATF had no agency wide standards for conducting compliance inspections of FFLs. The various geographical subdivisions, and inspectors within the subdivisions, conducted inspections however they wanted to at the time.

I also recall there was also no methodology for selecting FFLs for inspections -- some got inspected alot, some never, but aside from some big flag, like a criminal investigation, there was no method to statisically select a sample to inspect every year, since there were far more FFLs then they ever had time to inspect.

(The Agency was also criticized for not conducting enough inspections. Talk about a recipe for abuse. Which do you think was easier to fix? Coming up with actual standards and training everybody, or conducting more inspections -- without the standards?)

I found this appalling, and a huge indictment of every director of the ATF that ever served.

If I can find the IG report again, I'll post a link to it. But yeah, I can believe that the inspectors have no handbook.

elb

KBCraig wrote:

txinvestigator wrote:I find it difficult to believe that a Federal LE agencies inspectors "have no handbook under which to operate".

It really doesn't matter if they have a "handbook". ATF inspectors have both the law and the Constitution to go by, and they wantonly ignore both.

I agree...Wantonly ignoring both, even once, is enough in my book to keep an organization like that under extreme, debilitating scrutiny and full accountable oversight, till a few people, in and around that organization, learn a new word called "unemployment"...

Its a long time coming, and it is unlikely nothing will ever change to make this organization an effective and respected agency in our government...

Ironically, that is what I would like to see, because we do need enforcement agencies like this to operate as an effective counter to threats that would cause us harm...And not be some unwelcome, over budgeted, over-hyped and oppressive domestic tool used by the government against its citizens like it has been as long as I can recall...

Thats just the way I see it...