More than one way to skin the NRA

[CountDeMoney]

ATF rolled into the FBI?  Suck on that one a while, gun nutters.

Sen. Durbin pressures gun lobby with threat to move ATF authority to FBI

The No. 2 Democrat in the Senate is readying legislation aimed at pressuring the gun lobby to endorse the confirmation of a permanent Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF) director.

The bill being crafted by Senate Majority Whip Dick Durbin (D-Ill.) would allow for the ATF's functions to be shifted to another agency, such as the FBI, effectively bypassing the need for the Senate to confirm a director of the embattled bureau.

"It strikes me that if the Senate has not confirmed the head of an agency as important as this, after a certain period of time, that we should transfer the jurisdiction of that agency to the FBI for example, which has a long-term director," Durbin told The Hill. 

The National Rifle Association (NRA) has successfully lobbied Congress to block every presidential pick to head the ATF since 2006. The group argues that a permanent director could lead to more severe enforcement of firearm laws.

President Obama's nominee to fill the position, ATF acting Director B. Todd Jones, is currently making his way through confirmation proceedings in the Senate Judiciary Committee but has come up against stiff Republican opposition.

In response, Durbin said he is drawing up a bill that would repeal an appropriations rider banning the attorney general from transferring the ATF's jurisdiction to another agency. The ATF currently falls under the Justice Department's jurisdiction.

If the measure became law and the ATF's authority was transferred to the FBI, a permanent director could be chosen by the director of the FBI and would not have to go through the Senate's confirmation process.

Obama is expected to nominate James Comey to take over as head of the FBI when current Director Robert Mueller's term expires in September. The FBI director is subject to Senate confirmation.

Comey, who served as deputy attorney general under former President George W. Bush, has received a wide range of bipartisan support from senators and is expected to have a much easier confirmation process than any ATF director, in part because the term lasts for 10 years, which spans multiple presidencies.

Obama nominated Jones, who is also the U.S. Attorney for Minnesota, to head up the ATF as part of his 23 proposals aimed at strengthening the nation's gun laws in the wake of the Sandy Hook school shooting, which killed 20 children and six adults.

Jones told senators earlier this month that the lack of permanent leadership at the ATF has not only had an adverse effect on morale within the agency but has also hampered its ability to be as effective as possible.

"It does impact morale," Jones testified before the Senate Judiciary Committee. "I think it's also a fundamental question of good government because, as you mentioned, being a confirmed appointee does carry a certain amount of gravitas.

"You can be a more effective advocate for resources so that you can be accountable to this body, and to the organization that you work with — in this case the Department of Justice. Decisiveness is a critical quality for anyone who is in a leadership position."

Last week, Sen. Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa), the panel's ranking member, spurred the committee to launch a staff-led investigation of two complaints filed with the Justice Department's Office of Special Counsel accusing Jones of mismanagement and retaliation in his position as U.S. attorney.

The office has dismissed the mismanagement complaint and notified the committee that Jones has entered into mediation on the retaliation charge.

The Senate began overseeing the confirmation of an ATF director in 2006 when Rep. Jim Sensenbrenner Jr. (R-Wis.) — the House Judiciary Committee chairman at the time — successfully inserted a provision into a reauthorization measure of the Patriot Act. The move gave senators the power to block the president's nomination for the position and use it as a bargaining tool.

Durbin's bill, which he is hoping to introduce before the August recess, has the backing of New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg's group Mayors Against Illegal Guns. The group has dumped millions of dollars into a campaign aimed at combating the NRA's powerful influence, targeting senators who voted against a comprehensive background check bill earlier this year.

The group's director, Mark Glaze, told The Hill he hopes Durbin's bill will prompt the NRA and other gun lobby organizations to drop their objections to Jones's nomination.

"The ATF director is a Senate-confirmed position because that's the way the NRA wanted it, and it's been an unmitigated disaster," Glaze said.

"There's no credible argument against confirming Jones, but there were no credible arguments against confirming the last two nominees. Maybe Durbin can supply the incentive for a more rational debate."

Some of the bill's details are still being worked through, such as whether the ATF would continue to exist as an agency and simply fall under the jurisdiction of another agency head's purview, or whether all of the ATF's functions — in name and action — would be transferred to the other agency as well.

The NRA did not respond to requests for comment.

[Berkut]

This is a fine example of how the NRA/gunnut cry of "ZOMG WHY DONT WE ENFORCE THE LAWS WE CURRENTLY HAVE INSTEAD OF MAKING NEW ONES!" is so obviously complete and utter hypocrisy.

They actively attempt to thwart the enforcement of existing laws.

[CountDeMoney]

And they can thank their own party for making it so much easier to do in shuffling ATF out from under Treasury to Justice in the Homeland Security Shuffle.

[Razgovory]

Liddy: When the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms thugs come to kill your wife and children, to try to disarm you and they open fire on you. When they come at the point of a gun, force and violence, when you're going to defend yourself, use that Gerand [M-1 rifle]. That thing is 30-06, and it'll take 'em right out.
Caller: And yes, aim for the head.
Liddy: Absolutely.

Liddy: Arm yourself. Get instructed in how to shoot straight.

Caller: I've got weapons.

Liddy: Absolutely. And don't give 'em up, and don't register either.

Caller: No way. And I'm aiming between the eyes.

Liddy: There you go. That way their flak jackets won't protect them.

From G. Gordon Liddy former GOP talk show host.

[Eddie Teach]

He should stick to plumbing.

[alfred russel]

This is a fine example of how the NRA/gunnut cry of "ZOMG WHY DONT WE ENFORCE THE LAWS WE CURRENTLY HAVE INSTEAD OF MAKING NEW ONES!" is so obviously complete and utter hypocrisy.

They actively attempt to thwart the enforcement of existing laws.

I don't see why it is necessarily hypocrisy. Or even dishonest. I think the following views are consistent:

-in a perfect world, very few gun laws.
-if we have to have gun laws, hopefully they are few and unenforced.
-it is better to have a few enforced laws than many sporadically enforced ones.

In that case, you try to repeal and undermine the laws on the books, and when gun control sentiment picks up, you are okay with enforcement in order to avoid new legislation.

[Berkut]

This is a fine example of how the NRA/gunnut cry of "ZOMG WHY DONT WE ENFORCE THE LAWS WE CURRENTLY HAVE INSTEAD OF MAKING NEW ONES!" is so obviously complete and utter hypocrisy.

They actively attempt to thwart the enforcement of existing laws.

I don't see why it is necessarily hypocrisy. Or even dishonest. I think the following views are consistent:

-in a perfect world, very few gun laws.
-if we have to have gun laws, hopefully they are few and unenforced.
-it is better to have a few enforced laws than many sporadically enforced ones.

In that case, you try to repeal and undermine the laws on the books, and when gun control sentiment picks up, you are okay with enforcement in order to avoid new legislation.

Except they are not ok with enforcement - they try very hard to make it impossible to enforce completely valid laws.

So when they say "Hey, the government should not pass new laws, rather they should just enforce the existing laws" while at the same time the same people actively attempt to make it impossible to enforce existing laws, it is clear they are not actually operating in good faith. They are attempting to actively undermine the democratic process and the rule of law and the Constitution.

Which is utter hypocrisy, considering their fundamental war cry is supposedly a slavish devotion to the Constitution.

Of course, we all know they don't actually give two shits about the Constitution, they just really love their guns.

[Razgovory]

Berkut has a point.  LaPierre has been saying that the problem has been lack of enforcement, and that the NRA has never hindered enforcement of standing gun laws.

[Admiral Yi]

It seems to me a stretch to equate not confirming a director of the ATF with hindering enforcement of gun laws.

[DontSayBanana]

It seems to me a stretch to equate not confirming a director of the ATF with hindering enforcement of gun laws.

To be fair, the guy being held up simply said that it harms the agency's efficacy, which is perfectly sensible when you consider the guy in charge needs to have some authority for his decisions to have any teeth.

The journos are the ones putting the enforcement spin on it.

[Berkut]

It seems to me a stretch to equate not confirming a director of the ATF with hindering enforcement of gun laws.

There is no reason not to confirm him except as a means of keeping guns laws from being enforced.

And there are multiple other examples of this kind of activity by the NRA.

[Jacob]

It seems to me a stretch to equate not confirming a director of the ATF with hindering enforcement of gun laws.

It's a stretch to equate "refusing to appoint someone to be in charge of enforcing gun laws" with "hindering enforcement of gun laws"?

How so? The two seem very closely related. Denying effective leadership to the body charged with enforcing gun laws seems pretty close to "hindering" to me.

[Berkut]

This is just like Yi supposedly neutral questioning of laws to stop people from voting.

He pretends like it is simply a neutral observation, as if these things are done in a vacuum, and those who do them have not motive behind them, and we should simply look at them with no context.

There is a reason they go to considerable effort to block a confirmation, and there is a reason they go to considerable effort to "reform" voter registration despite no evidence of the problem they claim they are fixing actually existing.

And there is a reason Yi has a completely consistent track record in what side his inevitable "questions" fall on.

[Admiral Yi]

It's a stretch to equate "refusing to appoint someone to be in charge of enforcing gun laws" with "hindering enforcement of gun laws"?

How so? The two seem very closely related. Denying effective leadership to the body charged with enforcing gun laws seems pretty close to "hindering" to me.

Effective leadership is a pretty nebulous concept.  From my experience, in most large organizations people have functions that they perform regardless of the effectiveness of the leadership.   A cop shows up at work and patrols his beat regardless of the effectiveness of the leadership.  An auto worker puts a bumper on the car regardless of the effectiveness of the leadership.  I have no reason to belief it's any different at the ATF.

[Berkut]

It's a stretch to equate "refusing to appoint someone to be in charge of enforcing gun laws" with "hindering enforcement of gun laws"?

How so? The two seem very closely related. Denying effective leadership to the body charged with enforcing gun laws seems pretty close to "hindering" to me.

Effective leadership is a pretty nebulous concept.  From my experience, in most large organizations people have functions that they perform regardless of the effectiveness of the leadership.   A cop shows up at work and patrols his beat regardless of the effectiveness of the leadership.  An auto worker puts a bumper on the car regardless of the effectiveness of the leadership.  I have no reason to belief it's any different at the ATF.

Of course you have reason to believe it is different at the ATF. People at the ATF have said so - the acting director has said so. Common sense says so.

Large organizations don't spend money on leadership if they don't think it matters whether or not it exists. An auto-worker most certianly does NOT put a bumper on the car regardless of effective leadership - absent effective leadership he is likely to put it on the wrong car, in the wrong manner, or not put it on at all. He might not even have a car to put it on, or a bumper to begin with.