Mission statement:

Armed and Safe is a gun rights advocacy blog, with the mission of debunking the "logic" of the enemies of the Constitutionally guaranteed, fundamental human right of the individual to keep and bear arms.

I can be reached at 45superman@gmail.com.You can follow me on Twitter at http://twitter.com/45superman.

Friday, December 21, 2007

I'd prefer to see them dumped, rather than 'reformed,' but . . .

I frankly have serious doubts about whether any amount of "reforming" the BATFE can go far enough--there's certainly no way to "reform" away the fact that the very reason for the agency's existence is to infringe on that which . . . shall not be infringed. Still, I suppose that any effort to rein in our noble and courageous stompers of kitties is worthy of support.

Such an effort is apparently being made now, in the form of H.R. 4900, the "Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives Reform and Firearms Modernization Act of 2007" (text not yet available) [Update: according to this, the actual title of H.R. 4900 is the "Comprehensive Firearms Reform Act of 2007"], introduced by U.S. Representatives Steve King (R-IA) and Zach Space (D-OH). I don't know where Sebastian (Snowflakes in Hell) gets his information, but it must be a pretty good source--he seems to have been on this first (and then here). The NRA has released some information about it--go there to read up about it (by the way, speaking of the NRA and the BATFE, has everyone been asking them to oppose "Maximum Mike's" confirmation?).

Most of it seems like very worthwhile reform, although I question the need for this provision:

Allows transfer and possession of machineguns for use by federal security contractors. Additionally, H.R. 4900 provides for the transfer and possession of machineguns by professional film and theatrical organizations.
That's a relief--I was terrified that Pokey Poke, and the Hessians . . . er, Blackwater, et al. might have to get by with the same, paltry firepower to which we of the great unwashed are limited.

Still, the other provisions look to constitute a significant gain for private gun ownership, deserving of our support. And yes--I mean that we need to actively support this. If your Congressional Representative doesn't hear from you that you consider it his Constitutional duty to support this legislation, how can he be blamed for not doing so? They are the public servants, and we are their employers, but we cannot expect them to act in accordance with our will if we fail to make our will known to them.

Ryan Horsley has more.


Sebastian said...

I don't know where Sebastian (Snowflakes in Hell) gets his information, but it must be a pretty good source--he seems to have been on this first (and then here).

I work for Kaiser Söze

Kurt '45superman' Hofmann said...

I work for Kaiser Söze

Remind me not to upset you, then.

Anonymous said...

The people have had an opportunity since U.S. v. Miller to "reform" the various government agencies that have been infringing on the Second Amendment since NFA '34. You'll note the flavor of "tax collection" preferred.

It's also noteworthy this type of "tax collection" took place long before there was a BATFE, BATF, or ATF. Until those laws in violation of the Constitution are either repealed or rendered null and void, nothing's going to change. The BATFE may execute their duties perfectly in accordance with the laws from which they derive their authority, and still be in violation of the supreme law of the land.

The first challenge to the NFA '34 was a complete disaster for liberty and probably due process as well. The pattern has continued since then. The "pro-gun" movement lacks a solid foundation on which to build its arguments. We know what that is: the understanding of the people. We might as well present our arguments in Ancient Greek.

Happy Holidays!