ATF Director Again Promoting ‘Assault Weapons’ Ban
In a renewal of the Biden administration’s push for unconstitutional gun control, Steven Dettelbach, the director of the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives (ATF), stated his desire to reimpose a ban on “assault weapons” during a Harvard Kennedy School interview this week. This development signals a significant shift from his prior commitment to impartiality as the nation’s top firearms regulator.
During his Senate confirmation, Dettelbach assured a balanced approach, swaying key affirmative votes from Sens. Angus King (I-ME) and Joe Manchin (D-WV). His recent Harvard dialogue, however, marks a departure from the neutral stance he once touted, aligning closer to the advocacy seen in former nominee David Chipman than the apolitical enforcer of legislative intent he promised to be.
Dettelbach’s “wish list” includes not only the revival of the expired federal “assault weapons” prohibition but also the implementation of universal background checks. Critics argue that such a list implies an activist approach unsuitable for the directorship of the ATF, an agency historically distanced from policy advocacy.
Furthermore, Dettelbach’s inability to precisely define what constitutes an “assault weapon” casts doubt on the clarity and potential effectiveness of such a ban. Advocates for the Second Amendment view this lack of definition as a precursor for overreaching regulations that may infringe upon the rights of lawful gun owners. The term “assault weapons,” as referenced by Dettelbach, broadly encompasses modern sporting rifles, which are legally owned by a significant portion of the American populace.
The director’s endorsement of a ban reflects an administration increasingly perceived as catering to the gun control lobby, as evidenced by the establishment of an office of gun violence prevention linked to the ATF. Skeptics view this as a politicization of the agency, prioritizing ideological goals over constitutional freedoms.
The ATF’s proposed rules to expand the scope of licensed firearm dealers to include those selling guns at shows or online further illustrate a regulatory drift toward extensive oversight, potentially affecting tens of thousands of sellers. While the alleged goal of the proposal is to curtail unlicensed sales, it raises concerns about the burden on legitimate sellers and buyers who partake in the gun economy.
In the broader context, the ATF’s actions alarm a significant segment of Americans who fear that their Second Amendment rights are being quietly eroded by bureaucratic fiat rather than open legislative debate. This sentiment is further amplified by attempts to link unrelated policies to tragic events, as was the case with the Department of Veterans Affairs policy reversal being erroneously tied to unrelated violent incidents.
As the agency moves forward with proposed regulations, the public commentary period becomes critical for gun rights advocates to voice opposition.
