A lot of people see the rules the ATF proposes from time to time, recognize there’s a comment period, and then ignore it. Why bother? After all, the ATF is going to do what it’s going to do. The comment period is required by law, but there doesn’t seem to be any imperative to actually listen to those comments.
If there were, there are a lot of anti-gun rules that would never have gone into effect if they had been.
Right now, the ATF is considering a pile of new rules, and the comment period is in effect. As our friends at the Buckeye Firearms Association warn, it’s a bad idea to just shrug this one off.
We’ve all seen the headlines. The Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF) announces a new proposed rule change. Under hostile administrations, these rules threaten to turn millions of law-abiding citizens into felons overnight. Under pro-Second Amendment leadership, they are common-sense rollbacks of bureaucratic red tape designed to relieve heavily burdened federal firearms licensees (FFLs) and gun owners.
Yet a dangerous myth quietly circulates within the Second Amendment community: “The ATF is going to do whatever they want anyway, so why bother writing a comment?”
Let’s set the record straight right now. That defeatist attitude is exactly how we lose.
If we remain silent when a public comment window is open, we hand the anti-gun lobby an uncontested victory. Your voice is a critical weapon in this administrative dogfight. Here is exactly how the system works, why it matters, and how we use it to win.
Not a vote, but a legal paper trail
When the ATF proposes a rule change, federal law requires the agency to open the docket to public scrutiny. Many gun owners mistake this for a popularity contest or a simple digital ballot box. It isn’t. The ATF doesn’t just tally up the “yes” and “no” votes to declare a winner.
Instead, the agency is strictly bound by the Administrative Procedure Act (APA). Under the APA, regulators are legally mandated to read, analyze, and address every single unique, substantive argument submitted.
This doesn’t mean they have to go with what the majority wants, but they’re required to at least act as if they’re considering it.
If, as noted in the above-linked piece, anti-gunners flood the zone with their own nonsense, then the ATF has just their whacked-out opinions to consider. Since the comments are available for public examination, refusal to show any sign of consideration of those comments will create problems for the new and improved ATF.
We don’t want that.
If, however, we add enough of our own, we can at least provide a basis for the ATF to do as they’re considering now. We need to defend the restoration of our rights. We shouldn’t have to, no, but that’s because they never should have been infringed upon in the first place. If we don’t at least take the time to defend them here and now, we have no right to expect the ATF to respect them.
No, they haven’t, historically, and none of these proposals are really what we need, as they’re more of a correction to the status quo prior to the Biden administration than anything else, but that’s still important. It’s a basis from which we can build, especially now that the ATF isn’t run by rabid anti-gun zealots who want to use that authority to make gun ownership as untenable as possible.
We need to get what we can get while we can, and we need to comment on why these proposed changes aren’t the horrific things the anti-gunners are claiming.
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
