In a concerning development, the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF), under the Biden Administration’s guidance, has released a new rule that could fundamentally change the landscape for private firearm transfers in the United States. This newly proposed rule seeks to redefine what constitutes a “gun dealer,” thereby implicating virtually all gun transactions within the federal background check system.
Texas Gun Rights has consistently opposed such sweeping regulatory changes legislatively and the ATF’s new rule is once again usurping the powers of congress. The organization’s President, Chris McNutt, succinctly captured the essence of the concern: “The ATF and Biden are reshaping U.S. Code to effectively curtail the private transfer of firearms. The language of this proposal would, in effect, grant the federal government an unsettling amount of prosecutorial discretion.”
Now, it’s worth examining this within the broader framework of what gun control advocates have termed “Universal Background Checks,” which is more or less a euphemistic path to universal gun registration. It’s a subject we’ve researched extensively, and historical data underscores a salient point: registration is often a prelude to confiscation. This isn’t mere conjecture; it’s an observation validated by the legislative actions of multiple countries over the last century.
The ATF is currently in a 90-day public comment period, seeking opinions on this sweeping 108-page rule. While this may seem like a democratic process, there are reasonable doubts about the agency’s willingness to heed public input. As Dudley Brown, President of National Association for Gun Rights noted, “I’m not sure why the ATF has a 90-day comment period when the bureaucrats aren’t answerable to anyone and can make up the rules as they go along.”
The National Association for Gun Rights and Texas Gun Rights are presently gathering petitions to oppose this measure, but they’re also considering legal options. The situation draws attention to an essential but often overlooked aspect of constitutional governance: the unchecked power of bureaucratic agencies to redefine legal norms.
The proposed rule not only undermines the Second Amendment but also brings into question the balance of power between different branches of government. If a regulatory body can, by administrative fiat, significantly alter the public’s access to a constitutional right, it sets a perilous precedent for the erosion of other freedoms we hold dear.
As we await the outcome of this regulatory proposal, it’s crucial to remain informed and vigilant. The impact of such regulatory overreach extends beyond gun owners; it’s an issue that should concern anyone attentive to the scope and limits of government authority in a constitutional democracy.
Stay tuned for further analyses as we continue to scrutinize this and other pressing issues related to our Second Amendment rights.