Tag Archives: ATF

It’s Hard To Define Something That Has No Definition

Posted on by

On Tuesday, Townhall posted an article about a House Appropriations subcommittee hearing where Steve Dettelbach, the man President Biden chose to lead the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives (ATF), was questioned on the definition of assault weapon.

The article reports:

Steve Dettelbach, the man President Biden chose to lead the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives (ATF), followed in the footsteps of other Biden administration officials who have been stumped by seemingly straightforward questions from lawmakers, questions that deal with subjects within what is supposed to be their purview.

On Tuesday, Director Dettelbach was asked by Rep. Jake Ellzey (R-TX) to give a brief, 15-second definition of the term “assault weapon,” the thing President Biden and Democrats have demanded must be banned within the United States in order to reduce the frequency of crimes committed by individuals with guns. Dettelbach, however, came up completely empty during his testimony in the House Appropriations Committee’s hearing focused on the ATF’s FY2024 budget.

This is how the political appointee danced around the question:

“I’ll go shorter than that because I, honestly, if Congress wishes to take that up, I think Congress would have to do the work, but we would be there to provide technical assistance,” Dettelbach told Ellzey. Huh? So, the man in charge of ATF doesn’t even have a guess when it comes to defining a firearm type that is mentioned and demonized almost daily by the White House?

“I, unlike you, am not a firearms expert, to the same extent as you maybe, but we have people at ATF who can talk about velocity of firearms, what damage different kinds of firearms cause, so that whatever determination you chose to make would be an informed one,” Dettelbach added, confirming that President Biden had put forward another entirely unqualified person to lead a powerful wing of federal bureaucracy.

Actually, I could have saved him the embarrassment–to the Democrats and the people who want to end the right enshrined in the Second Amendment–an assault weapon is any gun that is scary looking. My definition is as valid as his definition.

Hidden (or not so hidden) In Biden’s Budget Proposal

Posted on by

On March 9th, The Daily Caller posted the following about President Biden’s budget proposal:

President Joe Biden’s proposed budget for fiscal year 2024 proposes increasing funding to the FBI, Department of Justice (DOJ), and Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF) to crack down on guns.

The funding, which draws from a $17.8 billion “investment” in the DOJ’s federal law enforcement capacity, will be used to further regulate the firearms industry, create gun trafficking strike forces, enforce background checks and implement the Bipartisan Safer Communities Act, according to the budget. The ATF alone will receive $1.9 billion, a $200 million increase from the 2023 budget.

Alongside the DOJ and ATF, the FBI will receive $51 million to support the continued implementation of enhanced background checks required by the Bipartisan Safer Communities Act. The Bipartisan Safer Communities Act, implemented in 2022, provided funding for the implementation of red flag laws, expanded background checks and invested in state crisis intervention orders, according to the legislation.

The article concludes:

The ATF’s “zero tolerance” police has been criticized by Republican lawmakers and Second Amendment advocacy groups, as Federal Firearm License (FFL) revocations hit a 16-year high in 2022 under the rule. The increase in license revocations, 92 in 2022 alone, is due to the new policy and the updated procedure that the ATF follows, as they no longer always go through a multi-step process, often opting to pull licenses for a multitude of “willful” violations.

“That’s not how regulatory agencies are supposed to work in the sector that they’re supposed to regulate. They are supposed to help the companies, they’re supposed to ensure compliance but they’re not supposed to punish and destroy an entire industry based on just political opposition or political distaste,” Gun Owners of America’s director of federal affairs Aidan Johnston told the Daily Caller News Foundation.

Many of the Democrats currently in power in Washington are working feverishly to overrule the Second Amendment and the freedom it protects. The only way to block this is through continuing court challenges to new regulations. There are a number of organizations that are pursuing these court cases as new regulations are put in place. Please do your research, find an organization challenging these laws, and support their work.

The Constitution Provides A Way To Protect Gun Rights Currently Under Fire

Posted on by

On Saturday, Breitbart posted the following headline:

The Congressional Review Act Gives GOP House Opportunity to Stop ATF Stabilizer Brace Rule

The article reports:

The Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives (ATF) announced the finalization of its stabilizer brace ban on Friday, and within hours, members of Congress were talking about using the Congressional Review Act (CRA) to block it.

The CRA was put in place in the 1990s as part of Speaker Newt Gingrinch’s (R) “Contract with America.” It grants Congress the ability to review a major rule and vote to block the implementation or effectiveness of the rule.

…The U.S. Government Accountability Office explains the CRA thusly: “The CRA allows Congress to review ‘major’ rules issued by federal agencies before the rules take effect. Congress may also disapprove new rules, resulting in the rules having no force or effect.”

Keep in mind that according to the Constitution, rules and laws were made in Congress and only in Congress.

The article reminds us that the ATF has attempted this ban in the past:

In July 2021, when the pistol brace rule was at the proposal stage, Rep. Richard Hudson (R) led 140 members of Congress in suggesting the proposed rule was a tax on “disabled combat veterans.”

Hudson called for the stabilizer brace proposal to be withdrawn, noting that the ATF had many times explained its position that such braces were “legitimate”:

The ATF has repeatedly stated, “the brace concept was inspired by the needs of disabled combat veterans who still enjoy recreational shooting but could not reliably control heavy pistols without assistance. Consequently, ATF agrees that there are legitimate uses for certain ‘stabilizing braces.’” If this is the stance of the ATF, then…[the proposed AR-pistol rule] is not an attempt to curb gun violence as suggested by this proposed guidance, but a direct tax on disabled combat veterans.

The article concludes:

The Congressional Review Act is in place for moments such as this and is apropos if, in fact, the stabilizer brace ban meets all the criteria of a “major” rule.

The U.S. Government Accountability Office explains: “The CRA allows Congress to review ‘major’ rules issued by federal agencies before the rules take effect. Congress may also disapprove new rules, resulting in the rules having no force or effect.”

A rule passed by un-elected bureaucrats who are not accountable to the voters should be immediately null and void.

 

Speaking Of Incredible Coincidences…

Posted on by
Badge of the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firea...

Image via Wikipedia

Katie Pavlich at Townhall.com is reporting that the Department of Justice wants to eliminate the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF). The move would involve the firing of 450 ATF agents. Some of the duties of the ATF would be transferred to other government agencies; for example, the enforcement of explosives and gun laws would possibly be transferred to the FBI and the DEA.

The article points out that the idea of eliminating the ATF comes just as the investigation of Fast and Furious is uncovering embarrassing links to some of the major players in the Obama administration.

The article points out:

Up to this point, the Department of Justice has denied all allegations or involvement in Operation Fast and Furious, yet journalists and the House Oversight Committee have proved allegation after allegation to be true. For example, during a Congressional  hearing in July, former ATF Special Agent in Charge William Newell, who has since been promoted to a position within the Justice Department, denied that his agency was trafficking guns to Mexico, despite overwhelming evidence and testimony from other ATF agents proving otherwise.

Ms. Pavlich concludes:

Last week, ATF offered 400 agents buy outs to avoid budget cuts and is expecting 250-275 agents to take the offer through Voluntary Early Retirement. These buyouts come at a convenient time for the Justice Department, which can eliminate ATF, then say it’s because of budget cuts, when really, it’s to cover their tracks.

As much as I love the idea of actually getting rid of a government agency, I don’t think this is the time to talk about getting rid of the ATF. It may be the time to look at what the agency did in Operation Fast and Furious, but it isn’t a good idea to eliminate an agency in the middle of a Congressional investigation.

 

Enhanced by Zemanta