Waco and Ruby Ridge: The real story

The Washington Times
September 13, 1995, Wednesday, Final Edition
Waco and Ruby Ridge: The real story

BYLINE: James Simpson

SECTION: Part A; COMMENTARY; OP-ED; Pg. A21

LENGTH: 1073 words

To the extent the Waco and Ruby Ridge hearings have identified flawed procedures and problem agents and supervisors, they have been illuminating and beneficial. These tragedies, however, are only the most egregious examples of an increasingly widespread pattern of federal law enforcement abuse of U.S. citizens, whose crimes, if any, have not warranted the massive force leveled against them. Instead of simply asking what happened at Waco and Ruby Ridge, congressmen must ask what underlying factors have created this atmosphere for abuse and then take steps to change them.

Because of its limited and controversial mission, ATF has always struggled for its place in the federal law enforcement community and has seldom received the generous budgetary treatment lavished on the FBI and other law enforcement agencies. Almost disbanded by the Reagan administration, the agency fought tooth and nail throughout the 1980s to regain legitimacy. ATF's subordinate status in large part explains its decision to carry out the now famous Waco raid. They were desperate to be recognized.

With the election of an anti-gun president in 1992 and a democratic majority still reigning in both houses, ATF saw an unprecedented opportunity. By conducting a dramatic, successful raid against "child molesting gun nuts" the agency hoped to gain a public relations coup that would bring it long-sought recognition (and bigger budgets) in one fell swoop.

The trouble is, this kind of political calculus is not atypical. Federal agencies are given their mission through congressionally enacted legislation. An agency's success at this mission is evaluated every year in appropriations hearings and rewarded or punished accordingly. Agencies thus gear their activities to have the highest impact in budget deliberations and mold them to harmonize as much as possible with the political philosophies of their congressional paymasters.

Conservatives have called for the dissolution of ATF. It should be obvious this is not the answer. The enabling legislation for the firearms enforcement mission of ATF is primarily the 1935 National Firearms Act and the 1968 Gun Control Act. Disbanding ATF will not remove these enforcement authorities from the books and as long as they exist, some entity will have to enforce them.

The answer is not transferring legislative authority somewhere else for some other agency to abuse. The answer is rewriting the legislation. The problem is that gun laws focusing on technical aspects of gun ownership, such as weapon configuration (e.g., a semi-automatic weapons ban) or registration (e.g. the Brady Bill) create an inherent potential for abuse of ordinary citizens.

Most field agents want to go after criminals, but to win in the budget process, managers want statistical results. The number of arrests is much more important than the quality of arrests - big numbers impress members of Congress. Furthermore, the national media and the Washington political class, including most Democrats on the appropriations committees, are hostile to gun owners. Among liberals, targeting gun owners is even politically chic; and younger agents increasingly reflect the liberal bias of criminal justice programs at American universities. Finally, law enforcement is increasingly frustrated by the legal system's road blocks to prosecuting real criminals. All these factors conspire to make gun owners an easy target for hostile law enforcement action, regardless of which agency has the mission.

Recently passed gun control legislation - the Brady Bill and the misnamed "Assault Weapons" ban - goes even further to ensure that more law-abiding citizens will be targeted. For example, by leaving the definition of "assault weapon" deliberately vague, the ban gave ATF latitude to make huge segments of the population felons overnight, simply by making definitional changes to the regulations.

The only way to effectively remove incentives for abuse is to acknowledge the futility of gun laws that focus on the weapon rather than on criminal behavior. It is widely recognized by law enforcement (even ATF) that few crimes are committed with legally obtained firearms and few criminals pay attention to firearms laws. In fact the opposite is true; criminals deliberately avoid the legal system. There is a black market in firearms that easily circumvents the best efforts of law enforcement and always will. The correct answer is punishment of criminal behavior.

For example, the 1984 Armed Career Criminal statutes impose stiff penalties on career criminals for possession or use of firearms in commission of crime. ATF created the "Achilles" program to take advantage of these statutes. Since the mid-1980s, the agency has locked away thousands of hardened criminals for long fixed sentences. The program was so successful it motivated the Justice Department to initiate a sister program known as "Triggerlock".

I am no opponent of federal law enforcement. I have met many ATF agents and do not think the vast majority are "storm troopers" or even incompetent. While there are obviously bad apples, most simply do their job. When focused in the right direction, as with "Achilles," ATF has been very effective.

The only way to insure agents do the job right is to give them the right job to do. This is where Congress bears the ultimate responsibility, and they can do a number of things:

* Revise laws governing federal employment to give managers greater latitude in dealing with problem employees.

* Repeal the Brady Bill and Assault Weapons Ban.

* Repeal or at least rewrite the 1968 Gun Control Act and the National Firearms Act.

* Strengthen statutes that punish criminal use of firearms and remove procedural roadblocks to swift and effective prosecution.

This Congress should bite the bullet and reform the gun laws so that they focus on criminal behavior, rather than serving to demonize gun owners, as they do now. If they don't, Waco andRuby Ridge will be just the beginning.

James Simpson, an Arlington businessman, is a former analyst at the Office of Management and Budget. From 1990 to 1993, he oversaw the budget for the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms and other Treasury law enforcement agencies.