Of Arms and the Law

Navigation
About Me
Contact Me
Archives
XML Feed
Home


Law Review Articles
Firearm Owner's Protection Act
Armed Citizens, Citizen Armies
2nd Amendment & Historiography
The Lecture Notes of St. George Tucker
Original Popular Understanding of the 14th Amendment
Originalism and its Tools


2nd Amendment Discussions

1982 Senate Judiciary Comm. Report
2004 Dept of Justice Report
US v. Emerson (5th Cir. 2001)

Click here to join the NRA (or renew your membership) online! Special discount: annual membership $25 (reg. $35) for a great magazine and benefits.

Recommended Websites
Ammo.com, deals on ammunition
Scopesfield: rifle scope guide
Ohioans for Concealed Carry
Clean Up ATF (heartburn for headquarters)
Concealed Carry Today
Knives Infinity, blades of all types
Buckeye Firearms Association
NFA Owners' Association
Leatherman Multi-tools And Knives
The Nuge Board
Dave Kopel
Steve Halbrook
Gunblog community
Dave Hardy
Bardwell's NFA Page
2nd Amendment Documentary
Clayton Cramer
Constitutional Classics
Law Reviews
NRA news online
Sporting Outdoors blog
Blogroll
Instapundit
Upland Feathers
Instapunk
Volokh Conspiracy
Alphecca
Gun Rights
Gun Trust Lawyer NFA blog
The Big Bore Chronicles
Good for the Country
Knife Rights.org
Geeks with Guns
Hugh Hewitt
How Appealing
Moorewatch
Moorelies
The Price of Liberty
Search
Email Subscription
Enter your email address:

Delivered by FeedBurner

 

Credits
Powered by Movable Type 6.8.7
Site Design by Sekimori

« Ill. statute -- self defense as defense to gun law allegations | Main | Events in PA »

cost estimate on BATF reform bill

Posted by David Hardy · 24 September 2006 10:06 AM

The Congressional Budget Office has a report on the projected cost of the legislation (pdf file, but small). Sounds modest, mostly hiring admin law judges and additional attorneys.

Giving the power to ALJs is, I think, a good idea (if done correctly). The ALJs at Interior were their own organization, and handled a wide range of cases from different agencies, so they didn't build up loyalty to any one agency. There were some who were known to be cozy with an agency -- but then, a district judge can be, too -- but most struck me as trying to do the right thing.

It would certainly be better than the present system, where one BATFE office issues a notice of revocation, and if it is challenged, the hearing is held before, and the decision made by, a BATFE agent from another district. Nobody in an agency wants to tell their peers that they are wrong, or do something that might constitute questioning an agency decision, so if there has ever been a revocation overturned within the agency, I've never heard of it. I'd assume they don't file a notice of revocation unless they figure they have the evidence for it, so even an impartial review might sustain most of them, but when the figure seems to be 100%, you have to figure something's less than impartial.

2 Comments

Beerslurpy | September 24, 2006 10:57 AM

Generally speaking, dont people only choose to go to trial/administrative hearings when they feel that the case is too close to call to one side or another? No one wants to waste energy one something that they are clearly going to lose, so one party or the other will simply concede to save money and time.

A conviction rate significantly different from 50 percent should signal that there is some other factor at play during the trial/hearing.

The important question is when dealers are choosing to appeal ATF rulings. Do they assume that it is fair and only appeal the grey-area cases or do they assume it is completely unfair and only appeal when they feel no reasonable human being could rule against them?

emdfl | September 24, 2006 6:02 PM

My vote would be for door number two...