Stakeholders BATFE (ATF)

A term often seen in the media is “stakeholder”, which seems to be the highly educated folks way of saying someone has a dog in the fight. Guess it sounds snappier than the more accurate “vested interest”.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vested_interest

Since 2006, the Director of ATF has required Senate confirmation, and no one has been confirmed, leaving the Bureau headed by an “Acting Director”. The Bureau has become a political football. Yes, this is Captain Obvious stuff for the four or five regular readers of my scribbles. This is being written on the offhand chance some “gun violence” troll might stumble across this, and be looking for possible solutions. Hey, it could happen.

Want proof? This is from ATF’s own website.

Q: How can a person apply for relief from Federal firearms disabilities?
Under the provisions of the Gun Control Act of 1968 (GCA), convicted felons and certain other persons are prohibited from possessing or receiving firearms. TheGCA provides the Attorney General with the authority to grant relief from this disability where the Attorney General determines that the person is not likely to act in a manner dangerous to the public safety and granting relief would not be contrary to the public interest. The Attorney General delegated this authority to ATF.
Since October 1992, however, ATF’s annual appropriation has prohibited the expending of any funds to investigate or act upon applications for relief from Federal firearms disabilities submitted by individuals. As long as this provision is included in current ATF appropriations, the Bureau cannot act upon applications for relief from Federal firearms disabilities submitted by individuals.
[18 U.S.C. 922(g), 922(n) and 925(c)]

Please note.

appropriation has prohibited the expending of any funds to investigate or act upon applications for relief

Now who is responsible for this “gotcha”? How about Senator Chuck Schumer, D NY who boasts about it; that he has  defunded this  going back to his days as a Congressman. Seems everything his finders touch has “gotchas”.

Want another example of “gun violence” trolls trying to use the public purse to advance their goals? Try this.
You do need to read between the lines.

http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/RS22458.pdf

For folks who “hate” guns, and by extension firearms users and owners, the truth that seldom comes out is this: Firearms owners are against “gun violence”. Their feelings are stronger than yours because their feelings are based on facts, they know what the hell they are talking about. No one wants the elimination of criminal use of firearms more than firearm owners.

Firearms owners who pay attention to national news know, without question, a powerful bloc of political, media, and academia segments want to totally disarm the citizenry. If they can’t repeal the 2nd Amendment, they will try to gut it. Firearm owners oppose them tooth and nail. As the fur flies, those who benefit from this conflict are the criminals. Little attention is paid to finding and bringing to court those who use firearms for criminal purposes.

So here is a modest proposal. Obama and his fellow travelers need to recognize the firearms community as stakeholders. There must be a few individuals, with the necessary skills to manage ATF, who are acceptable to the NRA, GOA, etc. This would make the ATF non partisan. Aren’t our institutions supposed to be exactly that?

I've tried to keep a civil tongue in writing this. Yes, you can "Yeah, but" everything I say. Try this idea; we are all in the life boat together, and need to learn to row together.