[correspondence between Eric Larson and Senator Orrin Hatch] October 15, 1997 The Honorable Orrin G. Hatch Chairman Committee on the Judiciary United States Senate 224 Dirksen Senate Office Building Washington, D.C. 20515 Dear Senator Hatch: I am writing to call your attention to instances of mismanagement, misconduct, and criminal wrongdoing by the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms, as noted in the enclosed article. The House Committee on Government Reform and Oversight recently directed the Treasury Department Inspector General to conduct an independent audit of ATF's firearm registration procedures, and to evaluate the internal report ATF generated in response to my complaint. I hope that the Committee on the Judiciary will consider holding hearings to establish new reforms to keep these abuses from occurring in the future. Sincerely yours, Eric M. Larson P.O. Box 5497 Takoma Park, Maryland 20913 [new letter] UNITED STATES SENATE COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY WASHINGTON. DC 20510-6275 October 27, 1997 Mr. Eric M. Larson P.O. Box 5497 Takoma Park, Maryland 20913 Dear Mr. Larson: Thank you far your letter regarding the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms (BATF). I care deeply about the rights provided and protected under the Constitution of the United States and appreciate the opportunity to respond to your concerns. I am aware of the alleged violations committed by BATF agents. Trying to balance the public's need for effective law enforcement and the rights of individual citizens is often difficult. But it can be done. Unfortunately, the BATF is plagued by continued allegations of abuse and misconduct. In the past, the Judiciary Committee has thoroughly investigated the actions of federal law enforcement agencies in connection with the tragedies at Waco and Ruby Ridge. I am committed to pursuing credible allegations through exhaustive and fair hearings in the Judiciary Committee. You can be sure that I will do everything in my power as Chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee to impress upon federal law enforcement officials that they must implement policies that prevent abuse and punish those who overstep their authority. Meanwhile, the government still has the responsibility to perform the regulatory functions now executed by the BATF. The question that remains, then, is how best to perform these functions while preventing future abuses. I am currently reviewing the feasibility of three specific suggestions for the future of the BATF: first, congress could abolish the BATF and transfer its functions to the FBI; second, congress could dissolve the BATF while assigning its enforcement functions to the Secret Service and its regulatory functions to the U.S. Customs Service; and third, congress could put the BATF under the authority of the Department of Justice, allowing that Department to review its policies and procedures. October 27, 1997 Page 2 Ultimately, I will do everything I can to maintain the balance between effective law enforcement and protected civil rights. Again, thank you for writing to me on this important issue. Sincerely, Orrin G. Hatch Chairman OGH:jgg [new letter] November 23, 1997 The Honorable Orrin G. Hatch Chairman Committee on the Judiciary United States Senate 224 Dirksen Senate Office Building Washington, D.C. 20510-6275 Dear Senator Hatch: I am writing to thank you for your letter to me dated October 27, 1997, which I received just yesterday. I am gratified that you have seriously considered the recent (and, I believe, credible) documented instances of mismanagement, misconduct, and criminal wrongdoing by the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms (BATF) as worthy of hearings in the Judiciary Committee. Of the three proposals you told me you are considering regarding the future of BATF, the proposal to place the BATF under the authority of the Department of Justice seems to me to be the most realistic. There are several reasons for my opinion: 1. Placing BATF within the FBI would not provide sufficient safeguards against abuse of discretion, mainly because there is no provision for independent review. 2. Abolishing BATF and assigning its enforcement functions to the Secret Service and its regulatory functions to the U.S. Customs Service would, in my opinion, inappropriately compromise the focus of the law enforcement and regulatory functions of these entities. I believe that the specialized functions of the Secret Service and Customs Service should not be diluted. 3. It would be relatively easy to separate the enforcement and regulatory functions of the BATF, and the Department of Justice has an existing infrastructure within which BATF's functions could be transferred. Most importantly, the Department of Justice could provide for an appropriate review of BATF's policies and procedures in ways that could maintain safeguards against mismanagement, misconduct, and criminal wrongdoing. 4. During more than 10 years of experience in dealing with the BATF regarding its regulatory and enforcement functions, I have become convinced that the BATF crossed the line into blatantly illegal practices so long ago, that these practices have become institutionalized. Consequently, in my judgement, the regulatory and enforcement functions must be separated, and some procedure put into place (perhaps an ombudsman, perhaps an independent appeals board, much like the Immigration 1 courts) for administrative and, if necessary, judicial review of policies, regulations, and their implementation. Some of the BATF's practices, in my opinion, amount to no less than institutional perjury across a broad range of offenses, and I have placed records of these instances in my testimony before the Congress. For example, in a letter to me dated July 7, 1993, Mr. Terry L. Cates, Chief of BATF's Firearms and Explosives Division, in response to my petition for reclassification of Title n National Firearms Act (NFA) firearm as a Title I firearm, stated: As you point out, the NFA provides for removal from regulation those weapons other than machineguns and destructive devices which, although designed as weapons, are found by reason of their date of manufacture, value, design, and other characteristics to be primarily collector's items and not likely to be used as weapons. [T]he Congress, in enacting the NFA in 1934, specifically covered these types of weapons in the "any other weapon" category (e.g., a smooth bore pistol). An administrative ruling removing these weapons from the NFA would, in effect, be removing by ruling that which Congress specifically covered by statute. Senator Hatch, in a followup appeal to Mr. Cates, I noted that the BATF had already used the 1968 law to remove (by administrative ruling) smooth bore pistols--including semiautomatic models and revolvers ranging from .22 rimfire to .45 caliber--from the NFA, as reported in the 1990 Firearms Curios & Relics List (ATF P 5300.11 (12/89)). [footnote 1] I am consequently forced to conclude that it appears Mr. Cates has either willfully committed perjury, or he is grossly incompetent. Neither conclusion is encouraging or welcome. I don't believe that either conclusion should be acceptable for a federal law enforcement agency charged with enforcing this Nation's gun control laws. A citizen who may live in the rural fastness of Montezuma, Iowa, or similarly remote location, has virtually no means of appealing Letter Rulings of this type in the same ways that I have--namely, by the honor and privilege of testifying personally before the Congress. There are plenty more included in my 1996 testimony, though I don't want to fatigue you by repeating them here. In my judgement, it is letters such as those written by Mr. Cates that have exacerbated issues dealing with so-called militia groups, who certainly are able to ---------------------------- 1. See "Statement on 'Curio or Relic' Firearms Manufactured in or Before 1934 Which Are Also Classified in the "Any Other Weapon" Category Under the National Firearms Act (NFA) of 1934, as Amended." Treasury, Postal Service, and General Government Appropriations for Fiscal Year 1997, Part 5. Testimony of Members of Congress and Other Interested Individuals and Organizations. Hearings Before a Subcommittee of the Committee on Appropriations, House of Representatives, 104th Congress, 2nd Session. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Government Printing Office, 1996, pages 133 and 231-232. 2 conclude that the Government itself simply isn't following the law. And while law-abiding citizens do not, I am sure, condone any sort of law-breaking, it appears to me that the Government runs a grave risk of compromising much of the support it justly needs by failing to root out and punish federal law enforcement officials who willfully break the law with apparent impunity. Finally, I would like to finish this letter by again thanking you for your interest in preventing and punishing criminal wrongdoing by federal law enforcement officials. Should the Judiciary Committee decide to hold hearings to further investigate my complaints against the BATF, I would welcome the opportunity to meet with you and your staff to engaged in specialized discussions of possible ways to proceed. Sincerely yours, Eric M. Larson P.O. Box 5497 Takoma Park, Maryland 20913