Home»Commentary»Remember That Time ATF Suddenly Withdrew Guidance on Stabilizing Braces!?

Remember That Time ATF Suddenly Withdrew Guidance on Stabilizing Braces!?

0
Shares
Pinterest WhatsApp

Article first appeared on Ammoland.com

U.S.A. –-(AmmoLand.com)- Guidance on what constitutes  “stabilizing braces” was published by the ATF on 18 December 2020. The guidance seemed less than objective, with a “we will know it when we see it” quality.

Back on December 23rd, of 2020 in a dramatic reversal, the deputy director of the ATF Marvin RIchardson, signed a withdrawal of the guidance, only five days after the guidance was published. The guidance was withdrawn pending further Department of Justice review. Here is the concluding paragraph from atf.gov’s document:


Upon further consultation with the Department of Justice and the Office of the Deputy Attorney General, ATF is withdrawing, pending further Department of Justice review, the notice and request for comments entitled “Objective Factors for Classifying Weapons with ‘Stabilizing Braces’,” that was published on December 18, 2020. 85 FR 82516. As explained in the notice, the proposed guidance was not a regulation. The notice informed and invited comment from the industry and public on a proposed guidance prior to issuing a final guidance document.

The withdrawal of the guidance does not change any law, regulation, or other legally binding requirement.

 

December 23, 2020                    Marvin G. Richardson

                                            Associate Deputy Director

It seems the Department of Justice (DOJ) was reminding the ATF who is the Boss. There was previous guidance from the DOJ to the ATF, not to change regulations without checking with the DOJ first.

Some might have interpreted this slap on the wrist by the DOJ as a reminder of the official pecking order, chain of command, hierarchical structure.

The ATF could have held off on these announcements for a couple of months. It is difficult to see where it would have made much difference, in all the smoke, confusion, and drama ongoing with the stolen election at that time. It is unlikely they would have gained or lost any points in the Biden/Harris, by simply waiting for a bit.

As someone who worked in various bureaucracies for over 30 years, the ATF has not impressed with its lack of strategic planning, or even a simple understanding of how to play the bureaucratic game in Washington, D.C.

Bureaucracies seldom lose by doing nothing.

Most ATF agents I have met have been diligent, honorable types trying to do a reasonable job premised on a dubious Constitutional basis.

ATF leadership has not had as good a reputation.

In the ATF’s defense, Congress has refused to appoint certain, strong, leadership to the top of this troubled bureau. Because of the Constitutional controversy built into the ATF mission, it is caught in a situation where whatever it does will be examined under a microscope.

In addition to the inherent tension with the Second Amendment, the firearms mission of the ATF, based on the 1934 National Firearms Act and the Gun Control Act of 1968, are a maze of illogical and contradictory policies. Those contradictions and irrationalities have been highlighted by the Heller and McDonald Supreme Court decisions.

The DOJ may have been trying to regain a bit of its tattered and soiled reputation ahead of the Biden takeover.

The Obama administration, with its outright criminality and coverup of the IRS, Gunrunning, Chinese corruption, and refusal to honor congressional subpoenas; followed by the multiple coups against President Trump and ignoble lack of action by first AG Sessions, then what appears to be a “wait out the clock” strategy by AG Barr, leaves half of the American electorate with strong and justified suspicions of any actions by the DOJ.

One result of the withdrawal of guidance is the enhanced paper trail of waffling on the issue by the executive branch.

It makes it harder for the ATF to claim it is enforcing obvious law, or that any citizen would be able to determine what the law is on any day.

When the law is unclear, courts are supposed to rule in favor of the citizen, against the government. This bizarre-bureaucratic-reversal was just more proof of incompetence and confusion and worthy of this second look.


About Dean Weingarten:

Dean Weingarten has been a peace officer, a military officer, was on the University of Wisconsin Pistol Team for four years, and was first certified to teach firearms safety in 1973. He taught the Arizona concealed carry course for fifteen years until the goal of Constitutional Carry was attained. He has degrees in meteorology and mining engineering, and retired from the Department of Defense after a 30 year career in Army Research, Development, Testing, and Evaluation.

 

Don't forget to like us on Facebook and follow us on Twitter.

Previous post

The White House Says They Want to Repeal Gun Makers' “Liability Shields”

Next post

Why Staying Alert is Key for Personal Defense