I just want to say briefly that we have heard some impassioned opinions about the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms, both in their favor and in their opposition. I want to point out, however that I do not think this is going to be an amendment that will be decided on whether we approve of how the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms by itself operates. The issue is, will this amendment, if it passes, affect those issues that the sponsors and proponents have offered? And the fact of the matter is, if in fact any officer or group of officers--and I say, ``if''--have made a conscious decision to deliberately violate the constitutional rights of any of our citizens, the fact of the matter is that the exclusionary rule of evidence does not protect honest citizens anyway in that circumstances because honest citizens will not have the evidence of crimes which can be suppressed and not used against them at the time of trial. There will never be any kind of criminal conduct, and that is why in my judgment this amendment is misapplied, and if there are problems with the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms, as suggested, I think other remedies could be brought to bear by this Congress.
Editor's note · Context
Discussing the implications of an amendment related to the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms.
Share
More from Adam Schiff
We respectfully urge the Commission to evaluate these renewal applications based solely on the factual record and the governing statutory standard, free from political considerations.
From safety improvements to modernizing aging infrastructure, this federal funding will make critical upgrades at California’s airports.
The Supreme Court needs reforms urgently to restore the American people’s confidence to that body.
The Office of Legal Counsel used to have sufficient independence from the president to give sound legal advice to the executive branch. Under Trump, it is an office that merely tells the president what he wants to hear.





