Unthinking idiocy codified as ATF regulation or just Chief Counsel's Office maneuvering "Big Ken" into position for the internal coup?

"Big Ken" Melson. Is he the Chief Counsel's Office patsy?

Folks,

To get briefed on the subject matter of my open letter to "Big Ken" Melson below, first go to David Codrea's Examiner post here, which asks the pertinent question, "Why did ATF suddenly redefine firearm transfers?" The original ATF document is posted here and the National Shooting Sports Foundation announcement is here. A recent Congressional Research Service report on ATF budget and operations for FY2020, dated 27 April 2010, can be found here.

Assuming you have caught up on the background, now you may read my open letter to Ken Melson, formerly Acting Director of the ATF, and now Deputy Director of the ATF.

31 May 2010

Ken Melson
Deputy Director of the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives
99 New York Avenue, NE
Washington, DC 20226
Also via email to kmelson@law.gwu.edu & Michelle.Back@atf.gov

Dear Ken,

First, I would like to congratulate you on your sideways transfer from Acting Director to Deputy Director. Pretty slick move on your part. It avoids the drop dead date by which an Acting Director's name had to be submitted to Congress (and we both know that ole Eric Holder ain't goin' down THAT road -- too much chance of a confirmation hearing blowing up in HIS face) and puts you in a job that is (as long as you want it to be so) more or less permanent. Like I said, pretty slick.

Of course this move presented your real enemies in the Chief Counsels' Office with a problem. They've been manipulating acting directors of the agency for DECADES, all the while avoiding serious blowback themselves for any screw-ups that resulted from their faulty "counsel." Even though they have long profited by this behind-the-scenes string-pulling, this situation is not entirely suited to their appetites. What the CCO lawyers really want is to maneuver one of their own into the top slot. The person most likely to get there (over your dead bureaucratic body, if necessary) is Teresa Ficaretta (AKA "Two-Bit" -- one of your unofficial monikers below the fifth floor is "Big Ken" and you don't want to hear the others). Ficaretta as you know was formerly Deputy Chief Counsel for Firearms, Explosives and Arson but is now Deputy Assistant Director of Firearms, Enforcement, Programs and Services.

My sources (among them Captains R.A. Bear and Jonathan Tuttle as well as the ever elusive fifth-floor snitch code-named "Waldo") tell me that it is common knowledge that Ms. Ficaretta wants to be the first female honcho of the ATF. To do that, of course, she has to see your backside hitting the door. Which brings us to ATF Ruling 2010-1.

The National Shooting Sports Foundation -- hardly a militia front group -- sums this radical and unilateral change of ATF policy (without, it is important to note, posting in the Federal Register for the required-by-law 90 day comment period) thusly:

Reversing an interpretation of the Gun Control Act that has been on the books for more than four decades, ATF today posted a ruling declaring any shipment of a firearm by a manufacturer (FFL) to any agent or business (e.g., an engineering-design firm, patent lawyer, testing lab, gun writer, etc.) for a bona fide business purpose to be a "transfer" under the Gun Control Act of 1968. As a consequence, legitimate business-related shipments will now require the recipient to complete a Form 4473 and undergo a Brady criminal background check. In many instances, these requirements will force shipments to a third party, thereby lengthening the process and the time that the firearm is in transit.

ATF officials have acknowledged this is a radical change from ATF’s long-standing interpretation that this was not a "transfer" under the Gun Control Act that was set forth in a 1969 ruling ("Shipment or Delivery of Firearms By Licensees to Employees, Agents, Representatives, Writers and Evaluators.") and further clarified in a 1972 ruling. In other words, ATF is now saying its long-standing rulings, issued shortly after the Gun Control Act was enacted, were wrong. ATF should be required to explain why it took 42 years to decide that its original understanding and interpretation of the Gun Control Act is now somehow wrong. ATF appears to be under the mistaken impression that the Brady Act of 1993 changed what constitutes a "transfer" under the Gun Control Act. Even if this were true - and it is not -- then ATF should be required to explain why it took 17 years to figure this out. ATF itself admits that neither the Gun Control Act nor the Brady Act defines "transfer." There is simply nothing in the Brady Act or is there any other legal reason that compels ATF to now reject 40 years of precedent.

For more than four decades manufacturers have shipped firearms to agents for bona fide business purposes. ATF is unable to identify a single instance during the past 40 years where a single firearm shipped in reliance upon ATF's rulings was used in a crime. This unwarranted reinterpretation of the law will cause significant disruption and additional costs for industry members and increase the cost of doing business, while doing nothing to advance public safety.

Indeed, I have read this over several times and it seems to me to be, once more, an ATF regulation in search of a nonexistent problem whose only effect will be to throttle the industry and allow the bully boys (and girls) of the Chief Counsels' Office to commit more "economic Wacos" on their perceived enemies in the industry.

As Len Savage of Historic Arms asks in a posted comment on David Codrea's Examiner column:

My only question is it now a "transfer" to hand off you package that contains a firearm to UPS, FedX, or USPS to ship to another dealer? . . . Are they not a "contractor"? Does UPS, FedX, or USPS have an FFL? Do I need the driver to fill out a 4473?

What could possibly have possessed you to issue this poorly-worded and ill-thought regulation without reference to the normal processes required by Federal law?

Which brings me to the point, "Big Ken." Who was responsible for this change? Was it "Little Jimmy" Vann of the Chief Counsel's Office, by way of Teresa "Two-Bit" Ficaretta? I suspect it was. And when the industry big-shots get their lawyers mobilized on this idiocy that you were persuaded to sign your name to, who do you suppose the blowback will hit? Little Jimmy and Two-Bit Teresa? Or the guy they got to sign it?

And what was Ms. Ficaretta's and the CCO's motive for this, really?

Now as near as my sources can tell there's one of two things going on here. Either this is in furtherance of the CCO's internal coup against you in support of Ms. Ficaretta's fondest desire to be the first female honcho of the ATF, or you have aligned yourself with CCO's long-standing campaign to enforce their anti-firearm agenda at the expense of the law.

So, do we have an "Unholy Trinity" going here, or are you just a CCO patsy in a larger game? In any case, you're being played.

And how, you should ask yourself, will all this be received at Main Justice, where your agency is already on Holder's deeper-than-whale-excrement roster?

Good questions all, I think.

Only you can answer them.

Have a nice day.

Mike Vanderboegh
The alleged leader of a merry band of Three Percenters
PO Box 926
Pinson, AL 35126
GeorgeMason1776@aol.com
http://sipseystreetirregulars.blogspot.com

CC: teresa.ficaretta@atf.gov, james.vann@atf.gov