The Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that the Bureau of Tobacco, Alcohol, and Firearms (ATF) does not have the power to alter gun laws to fit public opinion. In 2018, the ATF decided to ban bump stocks, a choice inconsistent with the written legislation of the 1934 National Firearms Act and the 1968 Gun Control Act. The decision came in response to “tragic events” occurring in 2017 and “public pressure” to ban bump stocks.
From National Review:
That the Fifth Circuit sided so completely with the plaintiffs should not have been a surprise. In 2018, during the presidency of Donald Trump, the ATF determined that non-mechanical bump stocks (which allow a shooter to pull the trigger of a semi-automatic weapon more quickly than he could with his finger alone) could be classified under federal laws as a “machinegun,” and be regulated accordingly. But, as the court’s majority noted, this determination was pulled out of thin air in response to widespread political pressure. “When ATF first considered the type of bump stocks at issue here,” the court observed, “it understood that they were not machineguns. ATF maintained this position for over a decade, issuing many interpretation letters to that effect to members of the public.” As a matter of fact, the court recorded, before 2018 the agency had never concluded otherwise: “From the time ATF first considered non-mechanical bump stocks to 2017, it categorized that type of bump stock as not being a machinegun.” And then, suddenly, it changed its mind, “subjecting anyone who possessed a bump stock to criminal liability.” Why? Well, because of the “tragic events that occurred in Las Vegas on October 1, 2017.” That’s why. Because, at the time the decision was made, “public pressure to ban bump stocks was tremendous.” Which, indeed, it was — but which was completely irrelevant to the material question at hand, which was whether or not such powers had been delegated to agencies such as the ATF by Congress. As anyone who has considered this issue for more than ten minutes will ineluctably comprehend, the entire purpose of writing laws down is to guarantee that, until those laws are changed by legislators, they remain in effect regardless of the transient passions of the mob. The law is the law, and it means what it means, even if there is “tremendous” public pressure to make it mean something else. If we want a government that is able to invent law on the fly in response to tragic events, we can abandon the Constitution and refashion the U.S. as a dictatorship. Until then, we must assiduously demand that all statutory alterations be achieved via the appropriate channels — which, in this case, are both houses of the United States Congress, followed by the president’s pen.
