Rethinking the ATF & NFA: A Call for Liberty

Rethinking the ATF and NFA: A Call for Liberty 

In the vast labyrinth of government regulation in the United States, the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF) and the National Firearms Act (NFA) stand as stalwart guardians of restriction and red tape. It is essential to question, however, whether these institutions are truly serving the spirit of the Constitution and the just cause of the people, or are they simply flexing an overzealous arm of control? 

The ATF, established in 1972, is a law enforcement agency in the Department of Justice. Its core responsibility: enforce the laws and regulations relating to alcohol, tobacco, firearms, and explosives. It was officially constituted as an independent bureau within the Treasury Department. This noteworthy move entailed a significant transfer of responsibilities from the ATF division of the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) to this newly formed bureau. The organization embarked upon a transformative path. The bureau's primary mission was reoriented towards the enforcement of federal firearms and explosives laws with a particular emphasis on addressing violent crime. In 2003, just one year before the sunset of the 10-year Assault Weapon Ban, the ATF was designated to fall under the purview of the Department of Justice.  
 
The ATF has been embroiled in controversy from the start. Testimonies were given by individuals prosecuted by the ATF, by experts with in-depth knowledge of the ATF, and by bureau representatives. The conclusion drawn by a Senate subcommittee report in 1982 was severe. It stated:

"Based upon these hearings it is apparent that ATF enforcement tactics made possible by current federal firearms laws are constitutionally, legally, and practically reprehensible." 

The Subcommittee was presented with evidence suggesting that the ATF's focus in enforcing firearms laws was on arresting individuals on technical malum prohibitum charges, targeting those who displayed no criminal intent or awareness of the law rather than violent criminals.The evidence submitted indicated a tendency among ATF agents to zero in on collector's items instead of 'criminal street guns'. In a session before the Appropriations Subcommittee that oversees the ATF, it was estimated, based on the testimony given, that around 75% of gun-related prosecutions by the ATF were directed towards regular citizens who showed no intention of criminal activity. Has there been any meaningful change since then? 
 
From the infamous Waco Siege to Operation Fast and Furious, the ATF’s maverick decision-making process has raised legitimate concerns about its methods and its very existence. The ATF's role in regulating alcohol, tobacco, and firearms presents an incongruous mix of responsibilities that has no clear rationale. Why should the same agency regulate both addictive substances and firearms, which are constitutionally protected? 

The NFA, which dates to 1934, taxes the production, sale, and use of certain categories of firearms, chiefly those considered "unusual or dangerous," such as short-barrel shotguns and machine guns. But this law's philosophical underpinnings merit intense scrutiny. Let us start by examining the central premise of the NFA. It implicitly suggests that the government has the right to regulate our self-defense tools. This stance is directly at odds with the Constitution's Second Amendment, which enshrines the right of the people to keep and bear Arms. By imposing a tax on the manufacture, sale, and use of certain firearms, the NFA effectively restricts access to these weapons, contradicting the intent of the Constitution. The argument that these weapons are "unusual or dangerous" is a weak justification at best. The Second Amendment does not distinguish between firearms based on their perceived threat level. Instead, it recognizes an inherent right to self-defense. By imposing arbitrary restrictions on certain weapons, the NFA infringes on the rights of law-abiding citizens and tilts the balance of power in favor of potential criminals who are not constrained by such laws. 

Furthermore, the NFA creates a financial barrier that predominantly affects lower-income Americans. By imposing a tax, it makes the acquisition of certain firearms prohibitively expensive for those in the most vulnerable socio-economic groups, thereby indirectly enforcing a class-based system of rights, which is fundamentally unjust. A $200 tax stamp does not seem awfully expensive to some people nowadays, but you must remember that this law was enacted in 1934. Once you calculate inflation it equates to about $4,553.87 in modern purchasing power. Could you imagine needing to pay a $4,500 tax just to slip a $30 plastic stock onto a rifle with a 12 inch barrel?  It was only through an oversight of the law that the $200 cost has remained static, and for many lower-income Americans that additional cost still creates an artificial barrier. 

We can add another layer of criticism to the ATF's modus operandi by scrutinizing its approach to interpreting laws. Two prime examples are its handling of pistol braces and binary triggers. To set the stage, let's briefly define these two items. A pistol brace is a device designed to stabilize a large pistol when being fired, and a binary trigger is a trigger for a firearm that fires once when the trigger is pulled and once when it is released. These devices were specifically designed to not violate the existing NFA law and be easily acquired by legal gun owners. 

While the ATF has a mandate to enforce firearms laws, it has increasingly been seen as stepping beyond its purview by seeking to reclassify these items - effectively changing their legal status without due process. The ATF's efforts to reclassify pistol braces and binary triggers as falling under the purview of the NFA is an egregious overstep of their authority. The attempt to reinterpret these items raises substantial concerns about the bureau's actions essentially amounting to rewriting the law as they see fit. The crux of the issue is the separation of powers. The United States operates under a system of checks and balances to prevent any one branch of government from becoming too powerful. It is the job of the legislative branch to write the laws, the judiciary to interpret them, and the executive branch (including agencies like the ATF) to enforce them. When the ATF seeks to interpret the law to such an extent that it effectively rewrites it, it breaches this separation of powers. This overstep is more than a bureaucratic SNAFU; it is a fundamental erosion of the democratic checks and balances that underpin our legal system. 

For instance, in the case of pistol braces, the ATF issued guidance indicating that the use of a brace could effectively turn a pistol into a short-barreled rifle, thus placing it under the regulation of the NFA. We argue that this kind of reinterpretation is not within the ATF's power. If the legal definition of a short-barreled rifle needs to be updated, that's a job for Congress, not a regulatory agency. 

Similar concerns surround the binary triggers. A binary trigger, as defined, does not meet the current legal definition of a machine gun (which fires more than one round per trigger pull). Yet, the ATF has sought to classify them as such. This, too, is a massive overstep of their authority. By overstepping its mandate and infringing on the responsibilities of the legislative branch, the ATF is creating a dangerous precedent. This should not only concern firearms owners but also anyone who values the principles of a democratic republic and the balance of power. We must hold institutions like the ATF accountable for these transgressions to maintain our democratic systems' integrity. 

In conclusion, it is essential to re-evaluate both the ATF and the NFA considering these arguments. The NFA, by infringing upon the Second Amendment and perpetuating socio-economic inequality, is a law that does not uphold the principles of justice and liberty. The ATF, given its controversial history and unclear mandate, lacks the credibility required for a law enforcement agency. It is high time that we address these issues head-on. We must strive for laws and institutions that respect the rights of individuals, promote equality, and uphold the Constitution's spirit. The ATF and NFA, as they currently stand, do not meet these standards. Thus, they warrant serious reconsideration and reform, if not outright abolishment, to ensure that the rights of all American citizens are equally protected and preserved.