No, the ATF Cannot Legally Regulate “Ghost Guns”

Quote of the Day

Political observers expect the Washington Post and the New York Times to carry water for Joe Biden’s Department of Justice gun control agenda. It’s surprising when the conservative National Review seemingly bends over backwards to defend the weaponized agency in a poorly researched and written piece.

On August 9, National Review published an item with the confident title “Yes, the ATF Can Legally Regulate Ghost Guns.” The ill-informed piece was written by a summer intern. If it was an unpaid internship, the publication got every penny’s worth.

August 21, 2023
National Review Wrong on ATF Frame or Receiver Rule

Words matter. And when those words are legislative law they matter even more. The ATF, and this summer intern, are ignoring and/or deliberately misreading the word of law.

Ignoring the word of law and/or deliberately misreading by politicians and judges should be a punishable offense. And in some cases it is. But of course, that law is there just to make us think we have some protection against those who use the power of government to deny us our rights. That’s not reality. The reality is, that ultimately, you have to defend your own rights. That is why we have the 2nd Amendment.


3 thoughts on “No, the ATF Cannot Legally Regulate “Ghost Guns”

  1. I was going to write a comment, but wanted to review the source article first … to which the NRA piece did not provide a link. Count one against the NRA copy-editor. The NR article is here.

    The NR author in question is Jonathan Nicastro, who is indeed a summer intern, and publishes several articles a week at NR.

    The NRA’s criticisms are valid; Mr. Nicastro has clearly read some of the statutes in question, and his interpretation is that a collection of parts or an unfinished frame or receiver could meet the definition of “destructive device”.

    Where he misses, is that “destructive device” has its own definition, and is regulated — and registered and taxed — under the NFA’34, of which he doesn’t seem to be aware. A firearm assembled from a standard frame/receiver and parts kit does NOT meet the NFA definition. If the finished product doesn’t meet the definition, then the collection of parts cannot meet the definition, either.

    The logical result of his argument is that ANY item that could possibly be machined into a functional firearm — including any inert piece of plastic or metal more than an inch thick and any steel or iron pipe at Home Depot — must be registered and taxed as a “destructive device”.

    If the phrase “destructive device” were a simple statutory euphemism for “firearm”, Mr. Nicastro’s interpretation might work. But it’s not — it is its own class of defined, regulated items — so it doesn’t.

    That is, unless Mr. Nicastro aspires to a career as a BATFE lawyer and find unregistered “destructive devices” everywhere, or an Everytown activist who considers ALL firearms “destructive devices”.

  2. Once again we find ourselves in the cesspool of make work shit-details for lawyers and politicians.
    As NRA went directly to a law that was passed by congress. (A law so ignorant it throws in suppressors as firearms.) Rather than standing on the solid ground of “shall not be infringed.”
    The ATF shouldn’t have an argument to make because there should no “F”. Period, end of debate.
    “To ban guns because criminals use them is to tell the law-abiding that their rights and liberties depend not on their own conduct, but on the guilty and the lawless.” Lysander Spoon.
    I’ve never heard of any pro-gun legal group filing a petition for “redress of grievance”, with the supreme court asking for remedy under the 2A clause of “The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.” Any argument to the contrary could be easily debunked.
    Instead, we get the backroom laughs. 2A as the legal argument? Where’s the money in that? HaHaHA!
    Never argue from your enemies ground. Never except their premise. It’s always a lie. We have done far too much of that in this country and it’s destroying us and our civilization.

  3. The “law” is no longer the Law. It’s merely a tool the communist criminal left uses to serve their agenda. They are NOT subject to it. It exists merely to be used as a weapon against anyone and everyone they don’t like. Want actual justice?
    Then you better be willing to dish it out vigilante style. Because that’s the ONLY way that anyone will be served actual justice.

Comments are closed.