Firearms Policy Coalition Promises Cost Will Be High For BATFE If They Ban Bump Stocks

Last night at midnight EST, the comment period on the BATFE’s Advanced Notice of Proposed Rulemaking closed. My comment was submitted last Saturday so that I wouldn’t forget it in all the hub-bub of the SHOT Show.

The Firearms Policy Coalition submitted their comment yesterday (on time). Their release below makes some very good points especially on the costs of implementing such a rule. It is important to bear in mind that if BATFE were to create a ruling banning bump fire or slide fire stocks, they would be making it up out of whole cloth. In other words, they would be assuming extra-constitutional powers that have no basis in either legislation or the rule of law.

Furthermore, there is the cost issue. There will be millions spent on enforcing an illegal law as well as untold millions on litigation. The Firearms Policy Coalition is upfront in saying that they will go to Federal court if the BATFE does create a regulation banning or regulating bump fire stocks. That said, I hope that cooler heads will prevail and any further moves towards a new regulation die in infancy.

From the FPC:

WASHINGTON, D.C. (January 25, 2018) — Today, civil rights advocacy organization Firearms Policy Coalition (FPC) submitted formal comments to the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives (BATFE) regarding a regulatory proposal that would apply the definition of ‘machinegun’ to so-called “bump fire stocks” and countless other devices. In a letter sent by FPC President Brandon Combs, the group called the proposal “troubling” and said that it “raises serious constitutional concerns, including the violation of the separation of powers.”

“The DOJ and BATFE clearly lack the statutory authority to re-define the targeted devices as ‘machineguns.’” But the gun rights group said that, if the government does re-classify so-called “bump stocks” and other devices to be “machineguns” under federal law, they would file a federal lawsuit that “would provide an excellent vehicle for the Supreme Court to re-visit and eliminate the made-up judicial construct of agency deference”—something many Supreme Court justices have signaled as an issue they may revisit soon.

FPC also said that the proposed ban would come at a high price. “These costs would necessarily include likely millions of dollars in BATFE implementation and enforcement costs, in addition to potentially millions of dollars in fending off the inevitable litigation arising from the serious constitutional and statutory violations engendered by this regulatory process,” FPC argued. “Moreover, American taxpayers would also likely be stuck with the bill for the plaintiffs’ attorneys fees and costs should the government fail in attempting to defend this illegal and unconstitutional action.”

After the October 1, 2017, mass shooting in Las Vegas, FPC released a statement ( ) saying that, even “in troubled and troubling times like these, we are honor-bound to stand united in defense of fundamental, individual liberties, in all cases, and in spite of the incalculable grief we feel for the victims of Las Vegas as fellow human beings.”

In a subsequent statement ( ) FPC repudiated proposed bans on semi-automatic firearms and accessories, including “bump fire” stocks. “All unconstitutional laws are unjust, illegitimate, and offensive to the rule of law—even if they are enacted in response to a very real tragedy. FPC opposes all restrictions on the acquisition, possession, carry, and use of common, semi-automatic firearms, ammunition, and accessories by law-abiding people.”

Later in October, California Attorney General Xavier Becerra issued a news release declaring “bump stock” devices to be “multiburst trigger activators” and “illegal in California.” But FPC responded days later ( ) and said that it was Becerra’s statements that were “disingenuous at best and probably illegal.” Said FPC President Brandon Combs at the time, “Not only is Attorney General Becerra’s so-called ‘news release’ inaccurate and misleading, it is almost certainly an illegal underground regulation.”

Reminder From GRNC – ATF Comment Period Closes Next Week

Grass Roots North Carolina sent out an alert reminding people that the comment period for the Advanced Notice of Proposed Rulemaking closes on January 25th. They also have a suggested comment. I have sent my comment in and will post it as a separately.

Just a reminder, all comments must reference Docket Number  2017R-22.


It seems our friends at the
Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (BATFE, often referred to
as the ATF) would like to impose “maximum firing rates” on American gun
owners. Apparently, there is even talk that they may classify your
semi-automatic rifle as a “machine gun.”

Reason and legalities tell us that a machine gun fires continuously and
automatically with a single function of the trigger.  But the BATFE is
no longer sure that definition suits them. This is because, since the
definition was established, super high-tech items have been developed, such
as rubber bands, belt loops, shoestrings and Jerry
.  The truth is, even with these “high-tech” devices, nothing
has really changed. So-called “bump firing” still requires one trigger action for each
round fired. Yet, the BATFE is looking to “clarify” the NFA
and whether certain devices, commonly known as bump fire stocks, fall within
the definition of machine gun. Absurd.

With the flick of a bureaucrat’s wrist, your lowly non-NFA firearm (read:
semi-automatic) may suddenly be elevated to the status of machine gun. It
will be classified not by trigger action, but by arbitrary firing rate, which
is something that can be altered by any number of things, including something
as nebulous as the skill of its owner. The list of items that can affect rate
of fire also includes innocuous, legal and unrelated things such as: optical
sights, trigger jobs, muzzle compensators, and who knows what else?
Picture Andrew
Cuomo screaming:
“No one needs a gun
that can shoot more than once every 5 minutes to kill a deer!”

Surely, we can trust the government to not take advantage of a new-found
power over the peoples’ guns, right?
Against This Infringement

The BATFE’s comment period regarding this proposed rule is still
, and it is critical that you submit a comment against this proposed
infringement on your gun rights.
If this is not stopped, who
knows when all guns will be classified as “machine guns?” To comment, find a link below, and a
copy/paste message you can use to comment.


    Click on the link provided, and use the copy/paste message provided
    below under ‘Deliver This Message.’ CLICK HERE (or go to:

    Comments MUST be submitted by
    Thursday, January 25th.


I’m writing to day to speak
against the formation of a so-called “Bump Fire” rule.

Clearly, the proposed rule is designed to open a debate about semi-automatic
firing rates, something that is not open to debate in a free country. This is
dangerous territory where ambiguous language, established by unelected
government employees, is sure to infringe on the Second Amendment rights of
The People.

The proposed rule references “devices used with a semiautomatic firearm to
increase the firearm’s cyclic firing rate.” Clearly, that sort of open-ended
language could be used to ban any device that increases the firearm’s cyclic
firing rate regardless of trigger action, e.g. trigger jobs, muzzle
compensators, optical sights, shoestrings, rubber bands, and who knows what

Given that bump stocks do not alter trigger function, firearms remain
semi-automatic, the BATFE has no legitimate authority to impose this
infringement on the American people. Indeed, there is no statutory definition
of “machinegun” in the National Firearms Act of 1934 nor the Gun Control Act
of 1968 that would allow the BATFE to make this stretch.

Any “Bump Fire” rule would be unconstitutional, and any “rule” imposed by
federal bureaucrats is really just a law established without the approval of
the peoples’ representatives. Surely, those at the BATFE have no interest in
circumventing the Constitution of the United States, nor would they want to
disrespect the country’s law-abiding people in such a manner.

For these reasons, I must insist that the BATFE immediately discard any
thoughts of imposing a “Bump Fire” rule.

ATF Or AEF? Trump Budget Proposes A Realignment Of Agency

“Senior administration officials” have told the New York Times that the Trump Administration plans to strip out the tobacco and alcohol enforcement roles from the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives. These functions would be returned to the Treasury Department as BATFE has ignored cigarette smuggling and bootlegging in favor “fighting violent crime”.

Under the Trump administration’s plan, the Treasury Department would inherit the authority to investigate tobacco and alcohol smuggling. The A.T.F. would need a new name. One possibility: the Bureau of Arson, Explosives and Firearms, or A.E.F.

The move would resolve a bureaucratic split that has existed for years. Treasury collects the taxes on cigarettes and liquor, but A.T.F. investigates efforts to evade those taxes.

The change is included in a draft of President Trump’s coming budget proposal, according to two senior administration officials. The plan envisions hiring roughly two dozen Treasury agents, plus auditors and support staff, the officials said. Congress would have to pass a law to reorganize the agencies.

The officials who discussed the proposal did so on condition of anonymity because they were not authorized to discuss it in draft form. Though budget plans can change, the officials said the A.T.F. language has remained in place through multiple revisions.

Spokespersons for BATFE and the Treasury Department did not respond to requests for comments.

A quick check of shows no comments on the proposed change.

I’m sure this proposal will be the source of some speculation at this coming week’s SHOT Show. If I pick up anything juicy or earth-shattering, I’ll share it here as an update.

H/T Stephen Wenger’s DUF list

Reclassification Of Bump Stocks By BATFE – Comments Due By January 25th

As many already know, the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives anticipates opening a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking with regard to bump fire stocks to clarify whether or not they meet the definition of a machine gun under the National Firearms Act of 1934 and the Gun Control Act of 1968. Before they release any proposed rule, they are seeking comments from manufacturers, retailers, and consumers. These must be received by midnight EST on January 25, 2018.

The Advanced Notice of Proposed Rulemaking with the questions to be answered is here. All comments must include this identification number – 2017R-22. Comments can be submitted online, by fax, or by US Mail. So far, 2,309 comments have been received. Here is the link to submit them online. It also allows you to upload a document.

These are the questions that they have for consumers:


21. In your experience, where have you seen these devices for sale and which of these has been the most common outlet from which consumers have purchased these devices (e.g., brick and mortar retail stores; online vendors; gun shows or similar events; or private sales between individuals)?

22. Based on your experience or observations, what is (or has been) the price range for these devices?

23. For what purposes are the bump stock devices used or advertised?

 Gun law attorney Adam Kraut had these suggestions for responding to the ANPRM. Adam has more on the notice here.

Comments vary in form, length, and specificity. However, there are some things that a person submitting a comment will want to consider. Specificity is key. Providing a basis for the support or opposition to a proposed rule is crucial. Citing to studies or other evidence-based information is useful to show the agency why or why not a proposed rule is useful. In the instance of an ANPRM, responding to the specific questions posed by the agency is a particularly good strategy (not to say a commenter could not and should not go broader in their response). has some more tips.

As important as comment “dos” are, there is one comment “don’t” that should be avoided: the Form Letter. As comment periods are not a measure of “popularity”, flooding the agency with form letters do not serve a useful purpose in the rulemaking process. A comment that is well reasoned is a much better avenue to pursue and not very difficult.

David Codrea has his take on the notice of rulemaking here.

The danger in this anticipated rulemaking is the same as it is with the proposed bills banning bump stocks before Congress:  where does it stop? With the Slidefire Bump Stock or will it go further to mean any modification that could increase the rate of fire of a semi-automatic firearm? Because of this, it is important that we comment.

While it might feel good to tell the BATFE to just f*#k off, go away, and mind the letter of the law, that will get us nowhere. It will be expressly ignored as it includes profanity. I think Adam’s approach to address some part of the questions asked is a good one. These cannot be ignored as readily. I think the key thing is to kill the attempt to issue a rule before it gets off the ground. That is better than having to respond to an actual proposed rule which is more likely to be adopted.

Why Bump Fire Stocks Were Approved

Rick Vasquez was the Assistant Branch Chief of the Technology Branch of BATFE. He has now retired and owns a firearms firm in Virginia. Before he retired from the BATFE, analysts under his management did the research and technical evaluation of the bump fire stocks submitted for approval. Rick reviewed their results and approved their evaluation. Moreover, he makes no apologies for it as it follows the law as written by Congress.

In the video below, Rick is interviewed for a Vice News/HBO report. While Vice TV often has a leftist slant, they played it straight on this one and let Rick explain things. He also shows the reporter how you can bump fire without a device or special stock.

Judicial Watch Goes To Court Against The BATFE

The Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives just can’t seem to keep themselves out of the news this week. The watchdog group Judicial Watch sued BATFE because they still have not responded to a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request for documents relating to the attempt to ban 5.56×45 “green-tip” ammunition. The FOIA request was made made in March 2015.

From Judicial Watch on their suit:

Judicial Watch filed the lawsuit after the agency failed to respond to a March 9, 2015, FOIA request seeking information on the ammo ban effort:

  • All records of communications, including emails, to or from employees or officials of the ATF related to the decision to revise the ATF 2014 Regulation Guide to no longer exempt 5.56 mm. SS109 and M855 (i.e., “green tip” AR-15) ammunition from the definition of “armor-piercing” ammunition.

The precise statutory definition of “armor-piercing ammunition” can be found in 18 U.S.C §921(a)(17).

“This is yet another example of how Obama’s wanton use of the ‘pen and the phone’ attempted to undermine the constitutional rights of all Americans, as opposed to upholding the rule of law,” said Judicial Watch President Tom Fitton. “The Obama ATF simply ignored our request on their ammo ban. Let’s hope the Trump administration finally brings transparency to this out-of-control agency.”

Reading through the complaint, it appears that BATFE just blew off this FOIA request and didn’t even assign it a control number. The complaint asks the District Court to order BATFE to search their records for the requested documents, to order them to hand over all non-exempt documents, and to enjoin them from continuing to withhold any of the requested documents. Judicial Watch is also asking for attorneys’ fees.

Judicial Watch is known for its success in these types of lawsuits. It will make for interesting reading what they uncover.

The Difference Between Stupid And Really Stupid

Stupid is blowing off a “request” to appear before the House Oversight and Government Affairs Committee. The committee was investigating the death of a Federal law enforcement officer, ICE’s Jaime Zapata, by Mexican cartel members using firearms BATFE allowed to be “walked” to Mexico.

This is what BATFE’s Associate Deputy Director Ronald B. “Ron” Turk did on Thursday, March 9th. In response, the committee chairman, Rep. Jason Chaffetz (R-UT), issued a subpoena for Mr. Turk.

Now that was stupid. Really stupid is what happens next.

Turk did finally appear on April 4th at another House Oversight hearing at which his earlier absence was noted. After getting into it with Rep. Chaffetz about why he didn’t appear when “invited”, Turk made this accusation as he really starts to go off: “You want to get your 15 seconds of YouTube minute time to challenge my honor.” You can see this starting at 4:56 in the attached YouTube video.

It takes Rep. Chaffetz another minute or so of questioning before he really lights into Turk for blowing off the committee and for his YouTube comment. That starts at 7:12 and runs until about 8:04. At this point Turk realizes that he has screwed up and starts to grovel for the remainder of the time.

Bear in mind that Turk is not only the number two person at BATFE but he is also a Brigadier General in the Maryland Air Nation Guard where he serves as Chief of Staff. He didn’t get to those two positions by being a good street agent or a good airman. He got there by being a good politician and a good politician should know when to shut up. That he had that lapse of judgement was a bit surprising given the political astuteness of his leaked white paper. It was really stupid on his part and cements the impression that BATFE is out of control.


Couldn’t You Just Imagine John Ross As Head Of BATFE?

I saw reference to this on Facebook earlier this evening and now have found the original letter. John Ross, author of Unintended Consequences, has volunteered to be Director of the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives for a salary of $1 per year. If you are unfamiliar with the book, it is a 1996 novel of the gun culture (one of the earliest uses of that term) and the jack-booted thuggery of the BATF.

If you don’t want to pay over $100 for a used hardcover version of the book, I suggest going to the publisher who reportedly still has paperback versions of the book available. While I don’t want to suggest gypping an author out of his well-deserved royalties, you can find PDFs of the book on the Internet if you look hard enough.

Ross’ letter and an introductory letter by T. J. Mullin are posted on the NFA forum. I have taken the liberty of reproducing it below.

John Ross volunteers for ATF Director position

Posted By: stfram
Date: 1/2/17 05:38

Copied from

January 2, 2017 at 12:26 am

Another Dollar-A-Year Man for the Trump Administration by Timothy J. Mullin and John Ross

Treepers: I’ve been urged to volunteer to be a part of the Trump Administration, and need a good place to publish these letters, that supporters can link to. I’d like that place to be CTH.

First, an introductory letter from Timothy J. Mullin, then my own to President-elect Trump.


To all Trump Administration supporters:

I suspect that most of you reading this are like me, and figure that anyone who wants to get a government job is likely one of two types: First, there are the lazy and stupid, who can’t compete in the private sector, but still want to get a high-paying job with good benefits. That’s okay, I suppose, as such people are not dangerous, just a drag on everyone else. Worse are those who want to get the job to exert power over other people, but who know that with their own skills and abilities alone, they could not do it. However, if they have the weight and power of the government at their command, they will be able to rule over others. Then, of course, there are those who are both things, the lazy & stupid who also want to control the lives of other people.

Alternatively, there are a few citizens who are willing to make sacrifices of both money and, more critically, time, to take a government position because they think it is the right thing to do. They know that they can bring insight and ability to a position that will make the country a better place–a better place not for themselves, but for others who will come after them. People like this get little value for themselves from their efforts, for they have already managed to structure their lives so that the reforms that they will encourage have little impact on them, but will benefit others.

Among this group of people who volunteer to sacrifice their own best interests, much the same as a soldier will do for the country’s best interests, is my friend, John Ross.

John has agreed to offer himself up to serve in the new Trump Administration as the Director of the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives. This Agency is one riddled with scandal and is certainly one of the least admirable of our existing federal agencies, considered by most as the “F Troop” of federal law enforcement.

Why, then, would anyone who has everything going for him, as John does, be willing to take on such a position? It is because he is the man for the job, and realizes that his country desperately needs his abilities and insights at this so-very-critical time.

For those who may have come in late to the subject of the BATFE and its interaction with the citizens and civil rights of our country, John Ross is the author of UNINTENDED CONSEQUENCES, the definitive book chronicling the gun culture of our country, and the attacks on it by our own government. This book has risen to as high as No. 7 on the Amazon hardcover sales chart, and is now in its eighth printing. It has sold an astounding number of copies, but more critically, it has achieved world-wide fame and been lauded by many readers (too many to count) as the best book they have ever read, excepting the Bible.
Not only is John Ross an accomplished author of great renown familiar with the BATFE and its many issues, he has been an active participant in the field for over 40 years, holding BATFE-issued federal licenses at a variety of levels, so he has had plenty of interaction with that Agency.

Of course, merely being the single most influential chronicler of the gun culture and holding licenses issued by the BATFE would hardly be sufficient to administer an Agency like the BATFE if he did not also have the intellect and managerial skills needed for such duties. His many articles in a variety of publications, like The American Thinker, as well as graduation from Amherst College, with BA degrees in both English and Economics, all give strong evidence of his intellectual capabilities. A successful quarter-century career managing others in the securities field, forty years and counting in Aspen real estate, and being an entrepreneur who developed and promoted a specialty handgun (the massive Smith & Wesson Ross Model 500 revolver), clear up any questions about the latter point.

Cleaning up an Agency like the BATFE, which is riddled with mismanagement, has been exposed numerous time for engaging in criminal behavior, and has a history of civil rights violations such that the honest citizenry of our country distrusts them at a level unreached by any other government agency, calls for a man like John Ross to take control and, to quote the new President, “Drain the Swamp.”

At my urging, John has written a letter to President-elect Donald Trump, following Mr. Trump’s example by offering himself as a “Dollar A Year” man. Such opportunities to get talent and skills like his are almost unheard of at the Federal level when accompanied by the correct attitude and philosophy. With his permission, I am attaching a copy of his letter offering his services.

I would encourage all who read this, and would like to see a rogue agency be brought back into the mold of an organization that can be trusted by those who applaud what our country was founded to achieve, to join me. Please contact the President-elect and ask him to take advantage of this superb opportunity for our nation.

Timothy J. Mullin is a 1973 graduate of the University of Chicago Law School and has a private law practice in St. Louis, MO. He has written over a dozen books on firearms-related topics, with emphasis on their history, cultural significance, and tactical use. He has also published scores of firearms-related magazine articles, many on the legal realities of protecting oneself from an overreaching Federal Government.


From John Ross:

Dear President-Elect Trump:

It is Christmas Day as I write this, and I have been watching the things you have been doing as President-Elect with ever increasing admiration. I would like to be a “Dollar a Year Man” in your administration—that is to say, to follow your example and eschew a government salary.

The position I’d like to fill is Director of BATFE. This would dovetail well with your policy of appointing established critics of various troubled agencies (EPA, HUD, etc.) as the people to best lead them, reform them, or, in some cases, oversee their dissolution.

The experience and attitude I would bring to BATFE would focus on four areas, all consistent with your philosophy of “Make America Great Again”:
Restore an environment in which the weapons invented by America’s individual small arms designers were the best in the world, with the attendant benefit to the U.S. Military;

Nurture an environment of innovation in all disciplines regulated by BATFE;

Preserve and advance the current and historic knowledge and techniques that are slowly being lost here in America;

Increase legal commerce (and the attendant tax revenue) in ways consistent with your strong pro-business platform.

Many of these goals can be attained with policy shifts within the BATFE which I would initiate, and would not require Congress to pass new legislation.

My Credentials:

While I have never managed a group of people as large as a Federal Agency, I spent over 25 years running offices and training departments in the Securities industry. I was successful enough at these endeavors that, like you, I can afford to work for free to help put our country back on the right track so that it will be stronger and more free for our descendants.

Of equal importance is my 40-year background in firearms and explosives. These fields are unlike most segments of American commerce in that they generate tremendous passion among their participants. More than one American firearms company, looking to improve its market position, has hired a Chief Executive who was a great success at running a company that made washing machines or some other common manufactured product, only to discover that consumers don’t think the same way when buying guns as they do when shopping for appliances. The same is true for explosives, particularly in the growing fireworks industry.

Business in this industry is bigger every year, and we are currently seeing over $1 Billion in domestic annual revenues. The BATFE should be directed by someone who understands these market realities with every fiber of his being.

The fact that I have zero experience in the manufacture, importation, sale, or distribution of alcohol or tobacco products is not, as it might first seem, a negative in regards to heading this federal agency. According to the General Accounting Office, BATFE spends 76% of its annual budget on firearms-related operations, and 22% on explosives and the attendant arson investigations.

Despite having “Alcohol” and “Tobacco” in its name, only 2% of BATFE’s budget is spent on alcohol and tobacco issues. The lion’s share of that tiny budget percentage is dedicated to thwarting illicit smuggling operations involving the movement of cigarettes from Virginia, where the state excise tax is 30 cents per pack, to New York and Chicago, where state and local tax rates are $5.85 and $6.16 per pack, respectively. See this article for documentation:

These statistics clearly show that it is imperative that a BATFE Director be intimately familiar with the areas where BATFE spends 98% of its budget, namely Firearms and Explosives. Even more importantly, the new Director must be sensitive to the legal and cultural issues that exist in the interplay between the Agency he directs and the citizens with whom it interacts.

I am that person. I will bring experience to the job, and restore credibility to this tarnished Agency.

Sincerely yours,

John Ross

“Suspected Of Impersonating A Police Officer”

The Anchorage Police Department received complaints about an obnoxious driver last weekend. They were very concerned as the vehicle involved had flashing red and blue lights and thought they might be dealing with someone impersonating a police officer. They asked the public for help in identifying the driver.

The driver in question, a white male in his 30s with short hair, came up behind multiple cars, flipped on his flashing lights and then would speed past them when they yielded. Oh, and he would laugh at them while flipping them the middle finger.

One of the motorists who had been pulled over took a picture of the license plate of the vehicle in question. This is where it really gets interesting. The APD went to run the plate against the DMV database and came up empty. Thinking it might be an undercover car of the Alaska State Police, they contacted them and also came up empty.

After a few days of detective work by APD, the car and unidentified driver were traced to a federal law enforcement agency – the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives. In a later release, APD said they were informed that this employee of BATFE was “on official business at the time of the incident”.

ATF’s Seattle office, which also oversees operations in Alaska, declined to answer questions Tuesday about the bureau’s policies regarding unmarked vehicles or whether any disciplinary action had been taken. The office released a brief statement from special agent in charge Doug Dawson.

“ATF is aware of the allegations made in the complaint and is investigating the incident,” Dawson said. “Further, as a matter of policy, ATF does not comment on personnel matters.”

I’m guessing the BATFE agent in question was confused by his agency’s directives on trafficking. He must have thought it had something to do with traffic enforcement as opposed to trafficking in guns, dynamite, moonshine, or cigarettes.

H/T Sipsey Street

People Ask The Most Embarrassing Questions

Unlike scripted townhalls scheduled for CNN, when it comes to government agencies and social media embarrassing questions do get asked.

A case in point. The Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives maintains a Facebook page. They posted a number of links late last night to the new rules being promulgated as the result of President Obama’s Executive Actions. There was one about the elimination of the CLEO signoff and another about Rule 41-P and responsible persons needing background checks. My favorite, however, was their guidance about when a Federal firearms license was needed. Someone named Bre Ve asked a question that you know they would rather ignore.

Reading the comments, it appears that a Becky Solis objected to the question. The commenters had good Google-fu and found out that she was none other than an area supervisor in the Denver Field Division. Her comment objecting to Ms. Ve’s question has, of course, been deleted.

Good on Bre Ve for asking the question of the day and for the commenters in exposing Ms. Solis.