Gun Import Law Enforcement

The Dec. 16 editorial, “That Smell at the ATF Is More Than Gunpowder” is erroneous and unjust. It does a disservice to the dedicated and caring employees of the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms who work to protect the public by fairly enforcing the often complex federal firearms laws. Any dissatisfaction with those laws should be addressed in the political process, not by making unfair attacks on career public servants.

There is no basis for the allegations that there is a “rogue operation” at ATF or that ATF has a “penchant for rubber-stamping assault weapon permits.” We have strictly applied the ATF-developed 1989 assault weapon definition. The 1989 standard is even stricter than the 1994 assault weapon ban, and under this standard we have kept many thousands of guns out of this country that can be legally manufactured and sold in the U.S. under the 1994 law.

It is unfair to say that ATF has approved the import of “copycat” assault weapons. Both the 1989 standard and the 1994 law define assault weapons by their military features. Any weapon approved for importation has been stripped of military features and found to fall outside the 1989 assault weapon definition and the 1994 assault weapon ban. At the request of the president and the secretary of the Treasury, we are studying the new guns to see if they meet the sporting purposes test for importation.

It is absurd to accuse ATF of being “overly friendly” with the firearms industry because it informs the industry about the firearms import laws. Educating citizens so they may comply with the law is good government.

JOHN W. MAGAW

Director, ATF

Washington