 |
|
 |
|
 |
|
 |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
The story begins a few weeks ago, when the Washington Monthly published an article, "License to Kill: How the GOP helped John Allen Muhammad Get a Sniper Rifle." At the request of Instapundit, I critiqued the article, and engaged in a dialogue with author Brent Kendall. The dialogue brought out what I considered to be several inaccuracies in the story, starting with Kendall's claim that the Bushmaster rifle is a "sniper rifle." Mr. Kendall also wrote that "ATF has no power to temporarily suspend a dealer's license, or impose a fine." Actually, 18 U.S. Code section 922(t) states that if a firearms dealer transfers a firearm without complying with the National Instant Check System, then BATF may, through administrative action, "after notice and opportunity for a hearing, suspend for not more than 6 months or revoke any license issued to the licensee under section 923, and may impose on the licensee a civil fine of not more than $5,000." The Washington Monthly lambasted Republicans and the NRA for restricting BATF powers by enacting FOPA in 1986. I responded that FOPA was enacted in response to BATF abuses:
The Oklahoma City Law Review article and my book No More Wacos go into more detail about the history of BATF abuses. As my note for Instapundit plainly said, the 75-percent figure is one datum of evidence about BATF abuse, but far from the only one. The 75-percent figure comes from a unanimous 1982 report of the Senate Subcommittee on the Constitution. After detailing a litany of statistics and case studies showing extreme and extensive abuse by BATF, the subcommittee's report turned to BATF's counterarguments:
On January 22, "Tapped" posted an item complaining about my use of the 75-percent figure. For example, "Tapped" pointed out that the words "abuse rate" were my own paraphrase, not the subcommittee's words. I guess some people would disagree about whether prosecutions of "ordinary citizens who had neither criminal intent nor knowledge, but were enticed by agents into unknowing technical violations" constitutes abuse, or whether "75 percent" constitutes a "rate." The Senate subcommittee got its figure of "approximately 75 percent" from a study conducted by Vernon Acree, a former commissioner of customs. The National Rifle Association commissioned Acree's study. As I noted in No More Wacos, Acree studied cases in Maryland and Virginia, and later told a reporter that he did not know whether BATF prosecutions in other states were similarly flawed. I almost never read "Tapped," was therefore unaware of its criticism of me for citing the Acree Study. On February 3, "Tapped" wrote:
So my citation of data straight out of a congressional report is labeled as "his make-believe numbers" along with assertions that I have "credibility problems" and that I must be "trying to hide" something. I didn't see this post either, until Richard Just ("Tapped" editor) e-mailed me on the afternoon of Feb. 3, inviting me to respond. I promptly wrote back a detailed response to "Tapped." The next day, "Tapped" published a single paragraph of that response. "Tapped" in its original post had concluded:
I responded to "Tapped" by quoting extensively from the Senate subcommittee's report, showing that BATF's problems were hardly limited to "a few cases in two whole states." Rather, the subcommittee detailed massive nationwide abuse by BATF. "Tapped" did not print any of my quotes from the subcommittee report, and even refused to print the URL pointing to the full text of the subcommittee report. Addressing the "Tapped"" arguments that earlier abuses should not prevent BATF from being granted additional powers, I wrote:
"Tapped" likewise didn't print this paragraph. The only thing they published was the first paragraph of my response. Thus, "Tapped" shields its readers from discovering that an organization of BATF employees agrees with my claim that institutional problems continue at BATF; indeed the BATF employee organization agreed so much that reprinted parts of the book in its own magazine. In the "Tapped" post printing my lone paragraph, "Tapped" wrote "Kopel was fibbing" and "Kopel is ducking the real question, which isn't whether the Senate subcommittee unfairly ganged up on the BATF, but whether or not the statistic on which his argument relies is credible or not." The Senate subcommittee found the figure credible, and provided voluminous evidence showing that abusive prosecution was the norm at BATF. Congressional committees frequently cite studies commissioned by interest groups, and "Tapped" hasn't offered any fact-based criticism of the study itself (which involved far more than "a few cases" as "Tapped" inaccurately claims). Nor apparently, did the BATF provide a convincing refutation of the study. As the Subcommittee wrote, and I quoted for "Tapped," (but "Tapped" refused to publish), the subcommittee found BATF's assertions that it not have a pervasive institutional problem to be "utterly unconvincing" and unsupported by any evidence other than the mere assertions of BATF administrators. To the contrary, BATF's own data substantiated the study's conclusion that prosecution of non-criminals was standard practice. In keeping with the hyper-partisan and factually loose style there, "Tapped" wrote: "The GOP lost control of the Senate in the fall of 1986 — but not before passing the McClure-Volkmer bill the previous spring." To be precise, the Senate passed the Firearms Owners Protection Act in 1985, then acceded to House amendments in 1986. The claim made by "Tapped" and The Washington Monthly that FOPA was a Republican bill is nonsense, and wouldn't be made by anyone who bothered with a few minutes research. FOPA passed the Senate 79-15, with 30 Democrats in favor and 13 opposed. Among the Democratic senators voting favor were Joe Biden, George Mitchell, John Glenn, and Al Gore. FOPA passed the House 292-130, with Democrats voting 131 in favor and 115 opposed. House Democrats who voted for FOPA included Tom Lantos, Tim Wirth, Lee Hamilton, Dan Glickman, Jim Florio, Mike Synar, Tom Daschle, Tom Foley, and Les Aspin. The lead House sponsor, Harold Volkmer, was a Democrat. "Tapped" doesn't show much evidence of being interested in serious and constructive dialogue. It's poor manners to attack someone, complain that they are dishonest for not responding, solicit a response, and then excise almost all the substance from that response. I enjoy debating the gun issue with thoughtful scholars like Carl Bogus (Roger Williams College of Law) and well-intentioned activists like Michael Beard (Coalition to Stop Gun Violence). But I don't waste time in flame wars on Usenet groups, and for the same reason, I'm going to resume my old policy of ignoring "Tapped." |
|
|
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
<% dim printurl
printurl = Request.ServerVariables("URL")%>
n
1986, Congress enacted the Firearms Owners' Protection Act (FOPA), which
reduced some of the powers belonging to the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco
and Firearms (BATF). Since then, however, antigun journalists have waged
an unceasing campaign against FOPA. The most recent effort — but
not the most credible one — comes from "Tapped," the web
log of The American Prospect, a Boston political magazine.
