Reject the ATF's Proposed Rule 2021R-05 Redefining Law

The ATF has been working overtime in its attempts to restrict our Second Amendment rights. In a previous article, I discussed the manner in which, “shall not be infringed,” has degenerated into what it is today. About a month ago, the ATF published a new proposed rule, 2021R-05. This rule outlines a series of extra-legislative reinterpretations of the statutes of the GCA 1968. It would change the definitions of legislatively determined terms like “frame,” “receiver,” “muffler,” “gunsmith,” “readily,” and a slew of others equally as important to maintaining our liberty (or at least not expanding the relative level of oppression we currently endure). The rule, as proposed, has many flaws, the largest of which is that it is not a law but it will be enforced as though it were one.

We are not simply at the mercy of the ATF. In the past, rules they have proposed were withdrawn based solely on the level of outcry and public commentary against them. Just a year prior, a proposed rule trying to do something very similar was overcome this way.

This is my purpose in writing here: to encourage anyone who reads this to be a part of this public outcry. However, it will require some effort on the part of everyone who wishes to see our rights and freedoms preserved. 

First of all, there is a limited window in which the ATF will consider public commentary. We only have until August 19, 2021 to submit our well-thought-out opinions to the ATF for consideration.

There are also caveats: the ATF will summarily reject duplicate submissions of commentary. It is not as simple as me or another commenter putting down a copy-paste job for you to knock out in a short minute. The ATF has other reasons for which they will discard commentary. Vulgar or profane language will cause the comment to be summarily rejected. Commentary that does not meet certain informational guidelines can be rejected. 

And, no, the submission of the phrase, “shall not be infringed,” though noble and apparent, will not suffice for their reckoning. Only their version of legitimate commentary will be considered. I will take you into that process if it encourages you to provide some.

Mailing your submission pen-and-paper (or printer-and-paper) is perfectly valid for providing commentary. Doing so requires a few clerical additions. You must ensure you identify the docket number ATF 2021R-05 clearly near the beginning of your commentary. You must also include your full name and address (maybe google writing a “business letter” if you don’t remember that element). Legibility of a paper letter is paramount as well, since if the ATF believes the submission to be illegible, it will be discarded and unconsidered.

ATF also provides an online alternative for filing a submission. One downside is there is a 5000 character limit whereas there is none for paper submissions. Other than that, the process is very straightforward. You either copy-paste or write directly into the text box. You can even upload a prewritten word file of myriad types; the key ones are likely .docx and .pdf for most people. Then, you must finish filling out the form, providing an email and indicating your affiliation and lack of robot-ness.

That’s the how. And that’s the easy part. The hard part is what do you say to the ATF expressing that you think they are wrong? How do you back it up? Especially when they have the imprimatur of the current regime in office, I cannot say I have the solution exactly. It is up to each of us to determine what encapsulates our displeasure with the proposed rule. Once again, we must all be original. I am not offering a copy-paste solution. But here are key elements of dispute regarding this ruling, any of which can be chosen as points for consideration.

1. The ATF is an enforcement agency. It is not a legislative body. You can express, in your own words, what that means to you. You can describe the fact that it is up to legislatures to write law, define terms.
2. Further, you can point out that they truly change the legislated definitions of many legal terms. They expand the words “frame” and “receiver” in a way that creates ambiguity in what the actual firearm is. It does so to the point that it could be made difficult to determine that, indeed, any part of a firearm does not constitute a firearm on its own.
3. The ATF wants these words, by their very nature, to have malleable definitions. They want them this way so they can match them to future technology. But feel free to point out both that words in laws and/or rules should have specific meanings that do not change over time and that nothing would stop them from simply altering the definition so that it tightens restrictions further and further without even needing to undergo this current regulatory burden of commentary.
4. Another definition that gets changed by this ruling is that of a “gunsmith.” In doing so, it puts a new burden on professionals, who only offer minor repairs to weapons, who may not have the time or resources to overcome them.
5. With these definitions changing and the new regulatory elements necessary within, the rule will likely cause an abject burden on people who create privately made firearms (PMFs). This is creating law that affects a wide swath of people out of whole cloth. PMF creation and ownership is not regulated at all.
6. Another position to present is the politically charged language used within the rule that refers to PMFs as so-called “ghost guns.” If you read that section of the rule and check the source, they use a number of skewed and one-sided articles and publications to make their point, including the atrocious 60 Minutes episode on the topic. It doesn’t hurt to point out that, with the proposed changes above, this law is very arbitrary. Tell them what that means to you. Express how not understanding what the law is, or will be, from year to year is a burden on your civil liberties.
7. One more point to be considered is just the monetary impact this will have on the citizenry. The only aspects of this considered when the ATF made their judgement of a “negligible” effect on the industry had to do with some regulatory compliance expectations. They put the cost at about $1.1 million over 10 years, despite also acknowledging in two ways how there are an unknown number of those affected.
8. You can also point out that this does not even attempt to assess the impact of suddenly finding out you now have new “guns” in your home that did not previously exist.

In closing, I implore you to take the time you can afford. Maybe it's an hour, or maybe it's 15 minutes. Please use it to write a brief comment to the ATF. Please let them know how you feel about any of the issues I have raised here. Be polite. Follow their rules for submitting. And let’s scare them with how many people disagree vehemently with this rule. We can make a difference; every one of us!

After you've done that, consider volunteering for the Convention of States Project. Only a Convention of States can permanently and effectively limit the power of overreaching federal agencies like the ATF. Only Congress should create laws--it's time we forced the federal government back into its constitutional box.