Last week’s edition of Well Regulated was entitled Polymer80 is just the beginning, but it could hardly be predicted that the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives (ATF) would escalate so quickly and so aggressively. Not even a week after the ATF raided Polymer80 to secure customer records, a letter was released from the DOJ and ATF regarding the reclassification of stabilizing braces. For those who are unaware, stabilizing braces were originally invented in response to persons who had difficulty holding up AR-style pistols due to their weight. Since the introduction of the original “Sig brace” stabilizing braces have developed into a significant portion of the firearms industry, with SB Tactical rising to the top as the largest brace company. Moreover, since the ATF issued a letter saying that a brace making contact with the shoulder while firing, many people have opted for pistol or non-NFA firearm configurations of firearms, especially for self-defense.
Photo credit: The Firearms Blog
With the declaration of the DOJ and ATF’s intent to reclassify braced firearms based on “objective” features without objective definitions, it seems that the age of the brace may be over. The government is required to have a comment period when citizens can express their opinions on such a rule change, but many are asking if it even matters. Many of those reading this article will surely remember that before the bump stock ban was put in place, there was a comment period as well. The bureaucrats did not listen to our concerns or our statements of fact that a semi-automatic firearm affixed with a bump stock only fired one round per action of the trigger and therefore could not be a machine gun per the letter of the law. Increasingly, the ATF’s confidence in its ability to issue conflicting, arbitrary, and capricious opinions with the force of law has grown. With only a month before Biden and Harris take office, there are even fewer barriers in the agency’s way.
There’s no harm in commenting, and if the ATF actually does care about the opinions of gun owners, then it could help. With that said, it is surprising that the ATF would issue such an opinion right now. They would have free rein to restrict our rights however they want after January 20th, why now? While this column is not in the business of giving advice to federal agencies on how to restrict the rights of citizens, it would be far more pragmatic for them to engage in such tomfoolery once our country has returned to normal. The American people are angry right now, not just about guns, but about the way that they have been treated by their governments. Recently, Tim Pool has been focusing much of his coverage on COVID lockdowns, restrictions, and those who have chosen to defy them. In his coverage, he has raised an important point, that if a restaurant is going to be put out of business either by restrictions or because they refused to comply, then there’s ultimately no difference in the outcome. Increasingly, small businesses are refusing to comply with statewide mandates to shut down or restrict service while mega corporations thrive for the simple reason that they have nothing left to lose.
On that note, let’s return to the title of this article: what is the worst that can happen? Typically, this is asked as a rhetorical question meant to imply that nothing particularly bad is possible or likely as a result of a certain course of action. But for the purposes of this column, it is a legitimate question as to what is the worst possible outcome of the ATF’s current course. Last week’s column discussed two legal concepts: Chevron deference and constructive possession. Expanding on the implications of these concepts and in light of the recent actions undertaken by the agency, it is important to ask what the ultimate endpoint will be. During the election, Biden openly campaigned on a number of extreme anti-gun policies, including adding standard capacity magazines and all semi-automatic firearms to the list of items regulated by the NFA and banning online sales of firearms and firearm parts. In all likelihood, adding magazines to the NFA would require an act of Congress, but many other proposals would not. Instead, all that would be required is a reinterpretation by the ATF of certain concepts, most importantly, “readily convertible” NFA items. With one letter, the ATF could declare that all semi-automatic firearms are readily convertible to machine guns and as such must be surrendered, destroyed, or registered. After such a letter, any parts for these firearms could be considered the same, and that a person who purchased them had the intent to construct an NFA item.
It is common knowledge that the ATF and many (if not most) in government do not care one bit about the Constitution or our Second Amendment rights. If they are empowered to restrict them through vaguely worded laws, arbitrary reinterpretation, and “public health” restrictions, then why wouldn’t they? The judicial branch, specifically the Supreme Court has refused to reign in the overreach of these agencies. It was understandable why the conservative branch of the court would be wary about hearing a gun rights case when there was a 4-4 split with Roberts in the middle, however just a week ago, the Court refused to hear a case on possession of firearms by non-violent felons. What will happen when the legislature, executive, and judiciary all ignore Americans’ rights at a time when the people have had their livelihoods, businesses, and very character restricted and destroyed?
