It has come to pass that the anti-constitutional Justice Department run by Merrick Garland (thank God we passed on him for the Supreme Court) has enacted rule 2021R-05. This, despite the overwhelming rejection of this absurdly wide-reaching redefinition of a firearm. I will need to add this to my previous article discussing A Brief History of Infringement.
If you need a very quick refresher, read the first paragraph of another article I wrote previously, calling for us to Reject the ATF's Proposed Rule 2021R-05 Redefining Law and I’ll dispense with the full recounting of this patently ridiculous infringement of our Constitutionally protected rights.
Sorry, I’m a bit hot under the collar... I want to rehash this over and over, as if it would change reality right now. Unfortunately, that won’t help. Once again, we are at the mercy of Federal overreach.
But this rule is not yet beyond retraction. This rule, per its own admission, “will have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities under the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996” (Page 312, Paragraph E). And, as a result, “must be sent to Congress and the Government Accountability Office for review before [it] can take effect” (Page 11). If both houses of Congress disapprove of the rule and the President refuses to sign it, it would be rejected. But, yeah, that’s not going to happen.
Beyond that, the final stop is judicial, as is most often the case. Individuals or corporate entities can sue, claiming they have been adversely impacted or damaged by the regulation. Then, the court can consider whether the rule is unconstitutional, goes against the agency’s authority, or is arbitrary, capricious, or abuses their discretion. Thankfully, basically every one of those stipulations are clearly violated by this rule. However, it’s hard to rely on the courts anymore to protect our Constitutional Rights.
If the court does set aside or vacate the rule, all that happens is it is sent back to the Justice Department to force them to find a more creative way to violate our rights. But it does give us another opportunity to speak our minds and it does keep the overreach at bay. I will stay on top of this issue and let you know when we need to reactivate to make sure the ATF and Justice Department know where we stand on having our Second Amendment trampled over.
And at the end of the day, all this does is highlight the importance of the Convention of States movement to limit the ability of the Government to have a say on what States and individuals do. This kind of power is not granted. It is only assumed. Despite the outcry of the country, an unaccountable bureaucracy has chosen to redefine laws - laws that were passed by the accountable Congress. And at that, laws I would still argue Congress had no business passing.
That’s it, though. All we have, in the end, are five (admittedly unreliable) relatively conservative Supreme Court Justices (and one wildly unreliable Chief Justice) who might be willing to grant us back our Constitutional rights.
Or we can stand up and use the Constitution to protect the Constitution, using Article V.
