The ATF has rolled out a lot of new rules, and on the surface, they all seem to tip things in our favor. Yes, it’s a refreshing change of pace. However, now that we have the actual text of what’s changing and what isn’t, we can begin an in-depth analysis of just whether we’re getting good news or a turd sandwich dressed up like good news.
The Second Amendment Foundation announced in a press release that it would begin its own look at these changes.
The Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF) released for review 21 final and proposed rules to the Federal Register today, and the Second Amendment Foundation (SAF) will review each final and proposed regulatory change and update its membership in the coming days.
Announced last week in a joint press conference with Acting Attorney General Todd Blanche and ATF Director Robert Cekada, the final and proposed rules include updates to the “engaged in the business” definition, firearm record retention periods, clarifications to interstate transportation of firearms under the Gun Control Act, and recordkeeping requirements for Federal Firearms Licensees, to name a few. The proposed rules were posted to the Federal Register today, and formal publication on the Federal Register is expected tomorrow.
“For far too long the ATF has waged war against gun owners, firearms manufacturers and retailers alike,” said SAF Executive Director Adam Kraut. “It’s refreshing to see this administration take a different approach and work with gun owners instead of treating them like second-class citizens. There’s still a long way to go to eliminate the burdens facing peaceable, gun-owning Americans, but this is definitely a step in the right direction. We will continue reviewing the proposed rules and participate in the rulemaking process to ensure appropriate feedback is provided.”
By law, federal agencies such as the ATF must consult the public when creating, modifying, or rescinding rules. Once the ATF decides a regulation needs to be added, changed or rescinded, it publishes a proposed rule in the Federal Register to ask for public comments. After feedback is considered and changes are made when appropriate, the final rule is published in the Federal Register with a specific date for when the rule will become effective and enforceable.
“During the signing ceremony last week, ATF announced a ‘new era of reform,’” said SAF founder and Executive Vice President Alan M. Gottlieb. “As the proposed regulatory changes go from prospective to published, we can begin the process of digging through them and informing our members as to what we see as good, bad or indifferent. We are encouraged with what we have seen thus far and look forward to being active participants in the notice and comment process.”
And, to be fair, we need to evaluate the rule changes. While I’m sure all of them appear to be solid, and they all are more beneficial to gun rights than what they’re replacing, there’s bound to be some surprises.
John Crump, writing over at Ammoland, has already highlighted one potential issue with the proposed change to the definition of a machine gun. While the bump stock restriction was removed, the new working definition for machine guns in the ATF’s playbook could potentially open the door to the agency restricting guns without even needing a new rule.
I’m not quite sure if he’s right–this is legalese, after all–but it’s worth considering. After all, we know good and well that the moment an anti-gunner gets in charge over there, especially with an anti-gun president, if there’s a way they can exploit the rules as written, they will.
So I’m more than willing to let the attorneys at SAF take a gander and give me their take before I get too worked up. And I know every other gun rights group is taking a deep look at these proposed rules, eager to see if we got tricks or treats.
And thankfully, there’s time to pressure the Trump administration to make any necessary changes before the rules go into effect.
We already know that the usual suspects don’t like the new rules, which is a promising sign, but that doesn’t mean they didn’t miss something that could end up being good for them down the road.
I sincerely wish that anything that can result in you getting locked up was written as simply as necessary, preferably where a third grader from a Chicago public school could understand the text perfectly well, and we didn’t need these kinds of examinations, but then life would just be too easy.
Editor’s Note: President Trump and Republicans across the country are doing everything they can to protect our Second Amendment rights and right to self-defense.
Help us continue to report on their efforts and legislative successes. Join Bearing Arms VIP and use promo code FIGHT to receive 60% off your membership.
Read the full article here
