E-mail updates
Follow on Twitter
Subscribe to RSS
At a time when some members of Congress are advocating new gun laws and raising questions about the eligibility of the Tucson shooting suspect to buy a gun, it's worth noting that the agency responsible for enforcing federal gun laws has been without a director for more than four years.
Congress changed the law in 2006 to require that directors of the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives receive Senate confirmation. Since then, there has been no confirmed director. All have been acting. During the George W. Bush administration, ATF's acting director was a commuter: Michael Sullivan was trying to run the agency, while also serving as the U.S. attorney in Boston.
The Obama White House did not nominate a director, Andrew Traver, until 23 months into the administration. Officials say a major problem was finding someone who would take the job. Several people, who were approached, said they did not want to get caught up in a confirmation process that would be long and tortured, these officials say. Others said even if they could get confirmed, they thought being ATF director would be a career-killer, given that the agency's powers are constantly in danger of being reduced in the face of aggressive lobbying by the National Rifle Association, administration officials say.
Traver, a career agent and chief of the agency's Chicago office, was quickly opposed by the NRA, dooming his prospects for confirmation.
Leave a Comment:
So the AFT has not had a a Director for some time because qualified people don't want to get caught-up in the confirmation process. And who would want to go head-to-head with the NRA. Speaks to the issue of a broken system doesn't it.
But I don't expect much to happen with regard to gun control legislation. Too few people want to stand up against the NRA. It is likely that more people will be harmed by guns used by drug addicts/pushers, the mentally ill, and common criminals.
BTW: No Jo, Go to First Thoughts, 1.24 ...and I will be looking for your response.
Sadly, Ron, the NRA is just too powerful for anyone to take on. And their unwillingness to compromise makes it unlikely that any meaningful gun reform will ever take place. In the case of the Az. shooter, it would seem to me that reasonable people could agree that someone who the Army judged unfit for service should not be permitted to purchase guns. I also haven't heard a good explanation as to why the kind of gun he carried with 30 rounds is necessary for any accepted non-law enforcement firearms use---hunting, target shooting, personal protection.
...zombies.
At any rate, being denied military service should've put a red flag in his file. I don't know who had access to his college's records, but something as serious as a demand for an evaluation before he could re-enroll is the kind of thing that needs to go into someone's file, somehow. There were warning signs Jared might engage in dangerous behavior and they went unheeded.
Nah, not really. Obama knows how to circumvent the system. He could have nominated a radical and then done a recess appointment like he did with Dr. "Death Panels?" to hide him and avoid the questions.
You're right about not expecting much to happen with regard to gun control legislation - the American people are against it. (The real reason no radical took the job before.)
BTW - Speaking of no joe, she has speaking a lot about the mental health issue regarding the Gifford's shooting. I thought you were a mental health guy. Why is she talking about DSM-IV indicators and you are calling him a tea bagger. You have no clue or suspicion about an element of mental health being in question. I realize your not going to do a diagnosis over the blog, but really Ron.....disassociative thoughts, delusions, detached from reality, government brainwshing, withdrawing from all friends, the age of certain manifestations...... ever see any of this stuff before? Any of it arouse any professional interest, or bother you?
You use the term fraud a lot with no joe. You sure she's the fraud?
The NRA will oppose anyone nominated, regardless of their background and credentials. Hell, if they had it their way, the NRA would like nothing better than to eliminate the ATF, since they see any rule or oversight as a "threat"
I like the Canadian approach to gun control (just read an article on anoother site about how different countries handle gun safety). Canadian authorities conduct background checks before a person is allowed to buy a gun. Wouldn't that be a reasonable compromise for people who are against outlawing the sale of powerful weapons like the glock used in the Arizona shooting? Certainly, it would have prevented this most recent tragedy as well as many others.
Background checks are fine and dandy, but in Jared's case his drug possession charge was expunged and the order to seek a psychological evaluation before re-enrolling at his community college didn't carry the force of law behind it.
In order for a check to work, there'd need to be a zero-tolerance policy in place concerning anyone with even a minor infraction on their record and to that end, one wouldn't be able to eliminate past wrong doings. Likewise, any call for a mental health evaluation would need to be logged on someone's permanent file.
You can background check all you want but if denied people will just purchase illegally. Most criminals purchase illegally anyway. A lot of people in America is missing the point because they haven't lived the life in the hood or in gang-ridden, criminally infested areas so they see it as a problem Congress can just legislate away. Unaffected Americans would like to just sweep it under the rug until it affects their lives.
It is perfectly alright for Pooky an nem' to shoot up every brother hanging out on the wrong corner but when that mess jumps the tracks and comes into Mr. manicured lawns neighborhood, it is all of a sudden a major crisis.
AMERICA has a MURDER problem not a gun problem. You cannot legislate a murderers mind away. The culture in America has to change to which won't happen in any of our lifetimes.
ITM: 'Pooky an nem' to shoot up every brother hanging out on the wrong corner...' Can you elaborate? I am not sure I understand your reference here.
I grow tired of the "restrictions are futile" attitude of the anti-gun control crowd. It's ridiculous to accept that one mentally ill man can defeat the forces of the FBI, the Sheriff's office and potentially, the Secret Service. It's as if the anti-gun control people are rooting for "the individual," even if that individual targets crowds made up of children, co-workers, bystanders, politicians and students. Why not discuss ways to at least slow down these nut jobs, by making them take a gun safety course before they are allowed to purchase a gun? It would also prevent a number of suicides, I believe, as well. Why shrug your shoulders, as if its not worth the effort?
@Amy. Because laws only work for law abiding citizens. They have NO EFFECT when the person is a criminal. So the person can't buy a at the store to commit suicide or rob a store. They simply find a back-alley dealer and get it illegally and that isn't something that laws have been incapable of fixing. Want proof? Just look at places that flat out banned guns and yet saw gun crimes INCREASE. And if someone wants a gun to commit suicide but can't get it? They use another option such as OD on pills (either OTC or prescription; or both).
There will always be crime and tradogies (sp?) and no amount of legislation will stop it. Banning or restricting weapons only affects the law abiding people, and should the ban affect criminals then they move to other weapons. If you want to lower the issues then allow the public to be armed, properly educate them, and properly enforce the laws already on the books. I mean in the AZ case the person cleared a federal background as it was. Just imagine if he was properly trained in how to handle a weapon. Not only would he of been more lethal with the weapon and his shot placement, he could have easily cleared the jammed round and kept killing. As for the 30round clip, the size is actually what caused his downfall (as the clip got near the end the spring wasn't strong enough to keep properly feeding rounds and hence the jam) and reloading takes only like 2-3 seconds. So smaller clips wouldn't have really slowed him down.