Pres. Barack Obama has nominated Andrew Traver, an episodically dishonest campaigner against Americans’ right to keep and bear arms, to be head of the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms. ATF is arguably the least competent of our major federal law-enforcement agencies and unquestionably the least impressive of them. The bureau probably ought to be dissolved and its functions dispersed among other agencies before it does more harm to the republic than it already has; it certainly should not be entrusted to a man with documented hostility toward Americans’ ancient constitutional rights and a remarkably backward view of the role firearms play in American criminal violence.
Agent Traver has lent his name and his agency’s clout to the usual range of anti-gun causes, including repealing the Tiahrt Amendment, which restricts the use of the ATF’s firearms database to criminal investigations, forcing gun-grabbers and class-action lawyers to gather their own data. (The nerve.) Also among Mr. Traver’s sins, which inevitably have been catalogued by the NRA, was using the reliably gullible media to mislead the public about the nature of the firearms covered by the now-expired “assault weapons” ban.
Advertisement
Agent Traver, at that time in charge of the ATF’s Chicago office, made exaggerated claims about the nature and prevalence of the “assault weapons” used by criminals in Chicago, and then, for the benefit of all those voters out there in TV-land, armed an NBC reporter with a machine gun — a fully automatic AK-47, to be exact — and watched as she fecklessly sprayed bullets about for the camera, missing everything she aimed at. As Agent Traver knew full well, the assault-weapons ban had not one thing to do with fully automatic weapons like the AK-47, which are very tightly regulated under other federal laws. The assault-weapons ban dealt with semiautomatic weapons — i.e., pull the trigger once, one bullet is fired, pull the trigger again, another bullet is fired, etc. — but those do not lend themselves as easily to flights of high rhetoric, and are not nearly as dramatic on television, as machine guns. Having spent some time observing the ATF’s for-the-cameras shenanigans at the Branch Davidian cult compound in Waco, Texas, I know that the bureau loves nothing better than drama.
Mr. Traver’s forked-tongue performance in that sloppy NBC story was typical: The popular-disarmament gang has long attempted to conflate semiautomatic weapons and machine guns in the public mind, though it was unusual, almost refreshing, to see a federal law-enforcement agent engaged in so flagrant and undisguised a display of dishonesty. Most of the so-called assault weapons are the ballistic equivalent of sheep in wolves’ clothing; they’re basically scary-looking squirrel guns. The greatest part of them are .223-caliber semiautomatic rifles, which is to say that they are largely indistinguishable from the little .22-caliber plinkers boys have been knocking cans off of fence posts with for generations. The .223 is too small to be used legally for deer hunting in most of the country — these paramilitary terrors being insufficient to bring down Bambi cleanly. Notable, that: The gun-grabbers always insist that they do not want to restrict hunters’ access to legitimate sporting guns, but a North American hunter stalking grizzly bears or moose frequently will be armed with a rifle packing a far more powerful pop than that of those carried by most of the world’s infantrymen.
All of which is rather beside the point, since rifles as a category, from Granddad’s deerslayer to Uncle Nasty’s assault rifle, are used only rarely in crimes. Even for a gangster in sagging jeans, it’s hard to walk around casually with Elmer Fudd’s blunderbuss in your shenanigans, and those .50-caliber competition-grade rifles they’re soiling themselves over in California go for about 15 grand, putting them out of the financial range of Joe Crackhead. Rifles just aren’t where the action usually is, crime-wise.
Which is not beside the point. What Traver and those philosophically aligned with him are engaged in is the opposite of law enforcement. We might call their business anti-policing, inasmuch as they seek to restrict the actions of law-abiding citizens — lawful gun owners, licensed firearms dealers — while largely leaving actual criminals untouched. If that sounds like I am overstating my case, consider the evidence.
Rifles are rarely used in crimes, but rarely isn’t never. A rifle, widely (and wrongly) reported to be an AK-47, was used in a terrible crime mentioned in the same NBC story in which Traver peddled his duplicitous firearms flim-flam: the shooting of 14-year-old Starkesia Reed by a murderous, lovelorn gangster named Carail Weeks. Weeks was upset that his ex-girlfriend had taken up with another man and randomly shot up his rival’s block. (Really, gangsters should be made of sterner stuff.) One of the bullets hit Miss Reed, who was watching the mayhem through her living-room window, in the head. She died.
ATF is also the point of the spear in the abuse of legislative authority.
Statutes governing their conduct pass through Congress with only a brief pause for the rubber stamp ("do you want to help criminals?"), but they do not contain an exact description of the prohibited conduct or contraband. Instead, these matters are left to the "broad discretion" of the Bureau itself.
With slight exaggeration for heightened dramatic impact, an example:
"The following acts, knowledge of such acts, failure to report knowledge of (same), concealment of (same), and solicitation of (same) shall be felony offenses under this Statute: possession of the following firearms; parts of these or other firearms; materials, machinery or tools to make, modify or convert such firearms or parts of those or other firearms; manufacture of (same); sale of (same); transfer of (same); gift of (same); destruction of (same); transportation of (same); concealment of (same): any and all contained or included in the Attorney General's list, or the list of any person or agency he designates for this or any related purpose, or exact or functional replicas or replacements of (same)."
The Question: What are the three things, whose possession and use of, Progressives believe should be outlawed for Everyone's own good.
They just don't trust us you see. We aren't "enlighened enough" to handle the personal responsibility involved with making choices for our selves or acting in our own defense.
Politicians and law enforcement agents like this guy drive me 100% bat doodoo crazy... I've lived in DC, where, as a single white female living in Adams Morgan I was not deemed worthy of owning a weapon. But the two teenage gangsters who mugged me in broad daylight surely had handguns. I've also served in the Army, which thoughtfully provided me with an all expenses paid trip to Iraq circa March 2003. One of the things that really struck me as we convoyed from Kuwait up to Tikrit was that despite the prevalence of AKs, officially you were only authorized to have a weapon if you were in the military or one of Saddams favored constituents. Naturally, a thriving black market sprung up because, as one farmer explained it to me through his 12 year old nephew, it is a small way to protect themselves from the government and the criminals (which were often one and the same). An unarmed populace is a complacent and oblivious populace, something that politicians like Obama, Bloomberg, et al, certainly understand.
"That is the kind of law enforcement that you can execute with a donut in one hand and a BlackBerry in the other, from a sedentary position, which is the preferred position of the publicly employed".
That is the kind of pull-no-punches prose that makes reading Kevin so enjoyable.
Now that I know what a straw purchaser is, I realize why, when my wife asked me to buy her a .22 long rifle to protect herself from the rattlesnakes we sometimes encountered, the clerk refused to sell one to me when I mentioned it was for my wife. I'm still not sure why, after buying one at a different store (probably committing a crime by doing so), I had to leave the store, take the rifle to my car, then return to the store before I could buy ammunition for it. Surely some bureaucrat earned his pay when he thought up that rule.
How can we as NRA members get this traitor out of his newly appointed position? Our 2nd Ammendment is being jeopardized by this imbasoul!! I beleive we all as Americans have the right to bear arms to protect our family, homes and of course LEGAL American citizens!!
The article is exactly on-point about dissolving the ATFE department and the laziness of contemporary police in general. But there are a few comments that are a little misleading. A .223 Nato round is not at all comparable to a .22 rimfire round: there is an order-of-magnitude difference in the energy of the two and almost as large a difference in velocity. Also, it is possible to buy a .50 cal semi-automatic or bolt-action rifle for under $5000 almost anywhere rifles are sold. These things are not important to Williamson's article but could be used by a detractor to say other things in it are incorrect.
Kevin D. Williamson
Deputy Managing Editor of National Review
Dear Mr. Williamson,
We are writing today in reference to your National Review Online article entitled Traver Off Target posted on December 29, 2010. Our comments are on behalf of the ATF Association (ATFA), a small association of current and former ATF professionals. Therefore, it will come as no surprise that we, and many of our colleagues, take great exception to your disparaging comments about the agency, its people and the work that they do.
We at ATFA share a much different perspective of ATF than you put forth in your article. The ATF we know is protector of the people and defender of the constitution. Its people serve this country well with dedication, courage and honor. For example, between Fiscal Year 2003 and 2009, ATF reported that it recommended over 125,000 defendants for criminal prosecution – 84% had prior arrest records.
We wholeheartedly agree with you that gun enforcement efforts must focus on the criminals who misuse guns and on the people who knowingly supply guns to those criminals. We also agree with you that armed criminals and illicit traffickers in firearms, including “straw purchasers” must be held accountable and treated seriously by the courts. Contrary to what you and others might want to believe, career ATF professionals are dedicated to, and routinely risk their lives in service of, these very principles.
Since we are charged with enforcing laws that many disagree with, however, many want to paint ATF employees as anti-gun. Nothing could be farther from the truth. The culture of ATF career professionals is to leave gun control politics to duly elected policy makers. We are taught from the beginning that our job is to faithfully execute the laws enacted by Congress and to fight violent crime. Some find it is convenient to brand ATF as an enemy or threat to gun owners, but in fact we are dedicated to just the opposite instinct.
The vast majority of ATF agents are gun owners who have no philosophical opposition to the possession of firearms for personal protection or recreational use. ATF law enforcement resources are overwhelmingly focused on the violent criminal; and we view our role in fighting criminal misuse as one that ultimately protects the lives and rights of law-abiding citizens. From our perspective it is the armed criminal, not ATF who is the most dangerous enemy of the “Second Amendment”.
Andy Traver is one of these ATF people. By agreeing to be nominated as director Mr. Traver has willingly chosen to submit his views on gun control and the role ATF should play addressing firearms crime to political scrutiny. You and others are certainly entitled to question his motives, philosophy and policy views on how gun violence can be best addressed.
Unfortunately he is being tried and convicted of being an anti-gun zealot without even having been afforded an opportunity to respond. Please remember that he has served his country well both as a United States Naval Officer and career law enforcement officer and he deserves an opportunity to respond to allegations against him, even if you believe his nomination raises serious questions about his fitness for the position.
ATF is in desperate need of a permanent director. The interests of everyone with a stake in public safety would be greatly served by providing ATF with the thoughtful and informed leadership of a dedicated law enforcement professional at the helm of the agency.
Signed,
The Members of the ATF Association Board
Good article and 100% spot on. I have sent a copy of it to my Congressman and two Sentors.
Note to Bechtel, you said " A .223 Nato round is not at all comparable to a .22 rimfire round...".
That's true but note that the NATO round is 5.56mm and, though the same dimensionally as the .223 Remington, has has a heavier bullet and higher chamber pressures and is not necessarily designed to work in some firearms chambered for the .223 Remington. Wikipedia has a good article on that. Which I wrote it and invite contributions to...
Regarding the treatment of straw purchasers as victims, there is one additional piece of pertinent information: they are almost always persons of color and are members of the so-called traditional American underclass.
This makes it virtually impossible to prosecute these felons in our hyper-politically correct large urban centers such as New York, Chicago, Washington, DC, Oakland, CA and Los Angeles. Not surprisingly, local politicians and law enforcement instead accuse law-abiding citizens of victimizing these down-trodden innocents by tempting them with "easy access" to dangerous weapons.
Also, your anecdote about debating Messrs. Spitzer and Jones could benefit by noting that one can only legally purchase a firearm within their state of residence. Traveling across state lines (e.g., to Philadelphia from New York or to Indiana from Chicago) to acquire a firearm is not an option for law-abiding citizens.
I didn't know there existed an organization known as the ATFA. I do know the argument they present in their letter is essentially a carbon copy of the argument offered by Nazi prison guards tried at Nuremberg, Germany, after World War II. "We just enforce the law, we don't make it" = "We just followed our orders, we didn't give them." These are no more than attack dogs for the federal government, whose organization should be dissolved and their functions assumed by the FBI. Law enforcement is sinking in public esteem. The ATF is a good example of why that is so.
