Making the Case to Abolish the ATF

Yes, many of us want the ATF abolished. Yes, Robert Cekada is the first ATF director who doesn’t suck, at least as far as I can remember, and he’s doing a lot of good things. However, I still want him out of a job.

Why?

Because as good as he’s been, there’s nothing to stop the next guy in that role from not just undoing everything, but making things worse. That’s why it needs to be abolished, in my mind.

Yet there are more reasons, and I saw this piece when it was shared by Lee Williams over on X, and the writer, Robert Russ, articulates them well.

There are government agencies Americans argue should be reformed. There are agencies people think should have their budgets cut.

And then there is the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives.

It is time to abolish the ATF.

That isn’t a call for lawlessness. It is an argument about constitutional limits, government accountability, and whether an unelected federal bureaucracy should have as much power as the ATF has accumulated over the exercise of a fundamental constitutional right.

…

Regulation by Redefinition

One of the strongest arguments against the modern ATF isn’t simply that firearms laws exist. It is how administrative power can be exercised.

Words matter. What constitutes a firearm? What constitutes a receiver? What constitutes a short-barreled rifle? When does a collection of components become something legally different?

Those questions can carry enormous consequences.

When agencies are given broad latitude to interpret definitions affecting criminal liability, the citizen can end up trying to navigate rules that seem capable of changing without Congress passing a new criminal statute. That’s backwards.

When the government wants to restrict a constitutional right, the burden should be on the government to make its rules exceptionally clear—and to stay within the Constitution. Citizens shouldn’t need to become administrative-law experts simply to avoid accidentally crossing an invisible regulatory line.

This problem isn’t unique to guns, but that doesn’t make Russ less right. 

We’ve seen this happen already, too. Suddenly, so-called ghost gun kits were illegal, even though Congress passed no laws at all. They just decided that the incomplete receiver — the ATF had not ever put down a point when a receiver was close enough to done to be treated as complete beyond 100 percent — and the rest of the parts were too close, and decided to ban it.

Yes, they were answering to the White House, but does that somehow make it better? Quite the opposite, actually.

If this were some unbiased, independent entity that was deciding to interpret Congress’s wishes, it might be a bit more tolerable for many people. The issue is that it’s not, and just because the bias is working in our favor today, it won’t stay that way indefinitely. They can always declare something by fiat, like when the Trump administration directed the ATF to change its ruling on bump stocks.

Yeah, he blew it there, though the Cargill decision gloriously put that one back to right.

Still, while Cargill found that the ATF can’t redefine things in a manner that opposes the laws Congress passed, but the same Supreme Court basically failed to do the same with the ban on privately made firearm kits, so I’m not ready to put all of my trust there, either.

Russ notes that he’s not advocating lawlessness, only that the Second Amendment means we shouldn’t have to ask “Mother, may I?” before exercising our rights.

He’s correct, and nothing is going to change that.

Editor’s Note: The radical Left will stop at nothing to enact their extreme gun control agenda and strip us of our Second Amendment rights.

Help us continue to report on and expose the Democrats’ gun-grabbing schemes. Join Bearing Arms VIP and use promo code FIGHT to receive 60% off your membership.