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

« Ooops... | Main | Payback is rough »

Bureaucratic memories

Posted by David Hardy · 15 February 2010 06:04 PM

The comment to the previous post reminds me of an experience when I worked in Interior's legal shop. Understand, to a bureaucrat "we've always done it this way" is sacred, safe; "we've never done it that way" means it's dangerous and unwise.

Early one morning my boss and I are attending the staff meeting of the Deputy Director, US Fish and Wildlife Service, when an Ass't Director brings up a strange issue. There was a statute that only applied to importing fish "taken" outside the US, with no definition of "taken."

A fellow wanted to construct an oil-tanker sized ship as a giant floating aquarium. He'd steam up to somewhere in Canada where salmon are taken, load the ship with them, and steam to Los Angeles. Along the way the salmon would be fed and fattened up. At Los Angeles they'd be killed and sold.

Question: within the meaning of the statute, were the fish "taken" when they were captured in Canada and put into the ship, or were they "taken" when removed from the ship and killed? Everyone in the meeting spoke of how this was a strange situation, nobody else had ever come up with the idea, etc.,etc..

The Deputy Director asked my boss for his legal opinion. I forget which way he went, but he ended with "because we've always treated that way."

There was silence in the room.

The Deputy Director said -- everyone here just agreed nobody has ever come up with an idea like this. If this is the first time the idea has ever come up, how can we "always have treated it that way"?

My boss thought for a few seconds (it was very early in the morning) and allowed he might have been misinformed.

· Personal

2 Comments | Leave a comment

dustydog | February 16, 2010 4:35 AM | Reply

That is a pitfall of middle managing in a large bureaucracy. If you are juggling multiple projects, you sometimes get them confused "Oh, is this the giant aquarium tanker meeting? I must have been thinking about the lobster crossbreeding meeting this afternoon."

I suspect quite a few government decisions have been made based on the facts from a different case.

Jim | February 16, 2010 12:44 PM | Reply

So what did you guys decide constituted the taking in this floating aquarium case, and why?

Leave a comment