Gun-Control Groups Sound Alarm Over ATF Reforms, but the Facts Tell a Different Story
On April 29, the ATF announced a package of 34 proposed and final regulatory actions, including several that revisit rules imposed during the Joe Biden administration. That same day, Everytown for Gun Safety released a statement attacking the changes.
Entitled “Everytown Statement on Trump Administration’s Attempt to Sabotage ATF and Limit Enforcement of Laws that Prevent Gun Violence, Trafficking,” the statement was pretty much what one would expect: Everytown’s signature blend of hype, hysteria, and outright distortions.
If Everytown President John Feinblatt were Pinocchio, his nose would stretch from Manhattan to Proxima Centauri.
Everytown also complained about the administration’s earlier repeal of the Biden-era zero-tolerance enforcement policy for “rogue gun dealers who committed willful violations of federal law.” What Everytown didn’t mention was how that policy allowed ATF to build revocation cases around paperwork mistakes, including Form 4473 errors, such as a customer confusing “country” and “county” and entering “USA” instead of the county in which he resided.
Yup, sounds like the apocalypse to me.
On August 5, an article by ATF Director Rob Cekada appeared in The Hill. He patiently explained what the agency was proposing to change and why.
When it came to the zero-tolerance policy, Cekada called it an abusive enforcement practice. He said it actually diverted agency resources away from fighting far more serious crimes.
Cekada closed his article with:
“Streamlining the regulatory system without weakening any actual safeguard is good government, and the public is better served by an accurate account of what the ATF is doing than an alarmed one.”
Sadly, Cekada’s informative article was a classic example of casting pearls before swine.
Just two days after Cekada’s article appeared, Giffords, Brady, and Everytown unleashed a new press release, which basically doubled down on Everytown’s previous scare tactics and added new imaginary boogeymen to the brew.
“If enacted, these ATF rules will endanger communities and lead to more gun crime. Fewer background checks will occur, crime guns will be harder to trace, straw purchases will be easier to make and extremely dangerous weapons like machine guns could be brought into communities without law enforcement’s knowledge,” said Emma Brown, Giffords executive director.
That description leaves out quite a bit.
The proposed rule governing non-over-the-counter firearm transactions would not eliminate background checks. An FFL would still have to verify the buyer’s identity, conduct the required NICS check and delay shipment for at least seven days. The proposal would change how an otherwise lawful transaction may be completed; it would not authorize an FFL to ship a firearm to a prohibited person without a background check.
The records proposal is similarly less dramatic than Brady and Giffords suggest. ATF is considering requiring ordinary Forms 4473 and acquisition-and-disposition records to be retained for 20 or 30 years instead of indefinitely. A shorter 90-day period would apply to forms used for certain private-party transfers or voluntary firearm-handler background checks, while records associated with a NICS denial would be retained for five years. Calling that “letting gun sellers destroy sales records” is catchy, but it conceals what records are involved and how long they would remain available.
The proposal involving interstate transportation of NFA firearms would not legalize unregistered machine guns or allow prohibited people to possess them. It concerns the process for temporarily transporting lawfully registered NFA firearms across state lines. The guns would remain subject to the NFA, and state possession laws would still apply.
Then came Brady President Kris Brown’s warning:
“Eliminating in-person background checks. Letting gun sellers destroy sales records. Loosening restrictions on highly lethal firearms. Letting reckless gun sellers stay in the business of selling guns to the public. These proposals would strip away decades of protections that save lives and hold the gun industry accountable. And let me be clear: the consequences will be devastating. One proposed rule even explicitly warns that implementation could result in ‘mass casualty events.’ That’s not a prediction we should accept. It’s a warning we should heed. Americans deserve leaders who measure success by lives saved, not guns sold. This November, they’ll have the chance to hold their leaders accountable for that choice.”
Cekada had already addressed the “mass casualty” concern.
“Coverage has falsely claimed that ATF was arming the mentally ill, and that our own analysis shows that this rule will lead to a mass-casualty event. In truth, ATF’s cost-benefit analysis did note that the risk “may be minimal, or may be considerably greater, up to and including mass-casualty events.” Disclosing the full range of costs and benefits, including even remote scenarios, is standard regulatory practice.”
Because it is based on fact and in reality, Cekada’s take is a bit different from Ms. Brown’s.
The “mass casualty” language appears in ATF’s proposal to revise the definitions of “adjudicated as a mental defective” and “committed to a mental institution.” The agency did acknowledge an unquantified possibility that its proposed definition could exclude some people who might pose a danger. That is not, however, a prediction that the rule will cause a mass shooting or an admission that mass-casualty events will become more likely.
The proposed change would address people who have been deprived of their Second Amendment rights because they were found unable to manage government benefits or other financial affairs, even without a finding that they were dangerous or incapable of safely handling a firearm. Needing help managing a benefits check is not the same thing as being adjudicated dangerous.
A constitutional right cannot rest on an agency’s assumption that someone who needs financial assistance might also be dangerous. If the government intends to disarm a citizen on that basis, it should have to establish the relevant facts through a constitutionally adequate adjudication, not rely on a bureaucratic category broad enough to sweep in thousands of people who have never been found to threaten anyone.
Cekada’s account is certainly different from Brown’s. He describes a collection of regulatory changes, acknowledges possible costs, and explains why ATF believes the existing rules exceed what is necessary. Brown takes the most alarming phrase available, strips it of context and presents a remote possibility as a warning of impending catastrophe.
That is how the gun-control machine operates. Every reduction in federal power becomes a “loophole.” Protection for due process becomes a danger to the public. Every attempt to bring an agency’s regulations back within the statutory text becomes another predicted mass-casualty event.
The Second Amendment is not a privilege administered at ATF’s pleasure, and a change in administrations does not make the agency the final authority on the scope of the right to keep and bear arms. Regulatory reform should be measured against the Constitution and the laws Congress actually enacted, not against how loudly Everytown, Brady, and Giffords sound the alarm.
About Bill Cawthon
Bill Cawthon first became a gun owner 55 years ago. He has been an active advocate for Americans’ civil liberties for more than a decade. He is the information director for the Second Amendment Society of Texas.