U.S. Rep. Bill Sali, R-Idaho, said Friday that his complaints about the slogan - "Always Think Forfeiture" - persuaded the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms to end its use on the Leatherman tools handed out to participants in a training program.So who the hell does BATFU think they are to require a FOIA demand before they'll release the names of other congressmen who "had inquired about the slogan"? Why is that not a freely-accessible public record, and does it not nicely illustrate what light-fleeing shadow-dwellers they are?
But a spokesman for the federal agency said Friday that the agency actually stopped using the slogan about two months ago, when other members of Congress first raised concerns.
Oh, and nice try, Walt Minnick. I see you credit yourself with being "instrumental in the creation of the DEA (Drug Enforcement Administration)." So I see what you mean about "pay[ing] attention to details" when the topic of assert forfeiture comes up.
I also see that as of a couple months ago, the majority of your support came from out of state donors--that'll serve the independence of Idahoans well--nothing like a little carpetbagging by proxy, eh?
I truly don't fault Sali. You don't know what you don't know, and those other congressmen should have come to the fore on this and been the leaders they tell us they are. And BATFU getting all snitty didn't help. The bottom line is, it's a good thing.
Here's somethihg else good that came out of this:
That changed March 19, when a blogger looking at ATF contracts on a government-purchasing database found an order for 2,000 Leatherman tool-kits engraved with the slogan.It's very nice to see Jed get some recognition, and affirms that bloggers can and do affect the course of things.
The blogger wrote about it on www.freedomsight.net, and the issue took on a life of its own in the blogosphere. Gun owners and private property rights activists seized on the phrase as a sign that the agency was biased toward law-abiding gun owners.
So--who knows how to file that FOIA request? Not that I don't automatically believe every word they say...
[Via Wayne Newton :) ]
My hunch is Congressman Sali was the one that forced ATF's hand in this matter. With Idaho having it's two senators blocking you know who's appointment to head the ATF. Then one of the Idaho congressman pegging this one, maybe has them smarting. If other other members from the congress made contact about this issue, who on earth would they not name them. There's no reason to not.
ReplyDeleteI wonder if there is going to be a new round of enforcement with Idaho's firearm dealers.
David,
ReplyDeleteWhen you file a FOIA request, you have to pay for the documents they produce... IF they produce it.
The problem with the ATF is that they claim it would take wayyyy more time to produce than is actually necessary, and will make it so costly that no one will be able to afford it.
In my previous life, I handled electronic discovery at a firm. It took us seconds, and I literally mean seconds, to take a hard drive, scan for responsive documents, and produce those documents. At a cost of less than .01 per page.
Here is a FOIA generator:
http://www.rcfp.org/foi_letter/generate.php
Thanks for the mention, David.
ReplyDeleteThe FOIA thing is a crock. Ought to be possible to do an end-run around it though. If asked, wouldn't each Rep. and Sen. be happy to answer a simple yes/no question on the subject?
It is possible to obtain a fee waiver for a FOIA request. Each agency is required by statute to promulgate regulations governing fee waivers.
ReplyDeleteHere is a link to the Dept. of Justice Fees and Fee Waiver info (see the second section titled "Fees"):
http://www.usdoj.gov/oip/fees.htm
Also, please note that this document is not the actual statute or regulations. (i.e.; It is not the official legal basis for anything. It is just a helpful summary.)
It might be possible for WoG to get a fee waiver as a member of the news media (not that I am volunteering WoG to seek a FOIA request). I have not read any of the cases in this area, but there is a brief discussion (possibly biased) in the DOJ document about the issues used in evaluating whether someone is considered part of the news media.