ATF is openly weaponized

Via a tweet from Chuck Petras @Chuck_Petras.

Leaked ATF Docs Reveal ‘Aggressive’ Push To Shut Down Gun Stores

Under the Biden Administration, ATF has changed its focus from regulating the gun industry to destroying it by whatever means possibleā€”eliminating access to firearms by putting as many gun dealers as possible out of business.

There was at least a 200% increase in FFL revocations since enactment of ATF’s Zero Tolerance policy. Of course, license revocations are a lengthy process, and this number almost certainly will continue to increase. Compare Biden’s Zero Tolerance policy to ATF’s prior policy:

Zero Tolerance: “ATF will revoke a federal firearms license, absent extraordinary circumstances on initial violations.”

Prior Guidance: “ATF may revoke a federal firearms license under appropriate circumstances based on an initial set of violations.

Even worse, ATF is using a history of good behavior and compliance with federal law against FFLs. Under Biden’s Zero Tolerance, now even a history of compliance, followed by a single unintentional mistake, may be used as proof of a so-called “willful” violation.

I hope they kept good records of all the people involved in this. And I hope the people responsible enjoy their trials.

Long term, I have hope the ATF will be found to be unconstitutional in regards to the regulation of firearms. Where in the history and tradition of the 2nd Amendment prior to, or at the time of, the 14th Amendment did such an agency and function exist?


3 thoughts on “ATF is openly weaponized

  1. Well, ya. ATF was built for such times as these. The whole compliance/audit process was not put together to help sale guns now was it?
    It was always for finding the “criminals” in the gun business. And it was just a matter of time before being that criminal was as easy as just getting the FFL!
    They know your a criminal, they just haven’t caught you yet.
    One could almost argue that getting an FFL was an entrapment scam by the government. Cause it is.

  2. Re “where in the Constitution” — that is true for nearly all Federal agencies, and certainly, by definition, it must be true for any so-called “independent agency”.

    “There’s nothing in the Constitution that says the Federal government has got anything to do with most of the stuff that we do.” — James Clyburn (D-SC)

    Indeed. It is obvious to anyone who can read the plain English words of the Constitution that the vast majority of what the Federal government does is not permitted by the Constitution, and therefore (Article I opening sentence) is forbidden and unconstitutional. But it is also obvious that politicians in all 3 branches, pretty much from the time that the ink on the Constitution was still wet, have utterly ignored all limitations and trampled and shat all over the clear meaning of the document. Arguably what we have today is a whole lot closer to “Hamilton’s Plan” than to what the Constitution requires.
    (Hamilton’s plan: you can find it in Madison’s report on the Convention (“Monday, June 18th”), which is long and detailed but quite worth reading. In a one sentence summary, he proposed a legislature with unlimited powers, with a Senate and a chief executive both elected for life. Sounds familiar?

Comments are closed.