Of Arms and the Law

Navigation
About Me
Contact Me
Archives
XML Feed
Home


Law Review Articles
Firearm Owner's Protection Act
Armed Citizens, Citizen Armies
2nd Amendment & Historiography
The Lecture Notes of St. George Tucker
Original Popular Understanding of the 14th Amendment
Originalism and its Tools


2nd Amendment Discussions

1982 Senate Judiciary Comm. Report
2004 Dept of Justice Report
US v. Emerson (5th Cir. 2001)

Click here to join the NRA (or renew your membership) online! Special discount: annual membership $25 (reg. $35) for a great magazine and benefits.

Recommended Websites
Ammo.com, deals on ammunition
Scopesfield: rifle scope guide
Ohioans for Concealed Carry
Clean Up ATF (heartburn for headquarters)
Concealed Carry Today
Knives Infinity, blades of all types
Buckeye Firearms Association
NFA Owners' Association
Leatherman Multi-tools And Knives
The Nuge Board
Dave Kopel
Steve Halbrook
Gunblog community
Dave Hardy
Bardwell's NFA Page
2nd Amendment Documentary
Clayton Cramer
Constitutional Classics
Law Reviews
NRA news online
Sporting Outdoors blog
Blogroll
Instapundit
Upland Feathers
Instapunk
Volokh Conspiracy
Alphecca
Gun Rights
Gun Trust Lawyer NFA blog
The Big Bore Chronicles
Good for the Country
Knife Rights.org
Geeks with Guns
Hugh Hewitt
How Appealing
Moorewatch
Moorelies
The Price of Liberty
Search
Email Subscription
Enter your email address:

Delivered by FeedBurner

 

Credits
Powered by Movable Type 6.8.7
Site Design by Sekimori

« ATF withdraws interpretative rule on "wrist braces" | Main | Thoughts on the anniversary of Washington's 1776 Christmas Trenton attack »

Arbitrary ATF rulings

Posted by David Hardy · 24 December 2020 11:59 AM

End of year ruminations from David Codrea.

A core problem is that ATF has never followed the Administrative Procedure Act, 5 USC 522. That statute provides for three levels of disclosure.
"[S]ubstantive rules of general applicability ... and statements of general policy or interpretations of general applicability formulated and adopted by the agency" are to be published in the Federal Register, from which they are edited into the Code of Federal Regulations. "An AR-15 receiver becomes a receiver and thus a firearm when the area that holds the fire control group is milled out" would plainly fit here.
"Final opinions, ... as well as orders, made in the adjudication of cases" are to be made available for public inspection online. This would include rulings that a particular item is or is not a receiver, plus FFL revocations, and other such rulings.
Everything else is subject to disclosure, on request, through FOIA. The first two categories are not matter disclosed if requisition, they are supposed to be actively disclosed, and so is any amendment to them. ATF instead, if someone violates their unpublished standards, simply sends an official to testify that "we take the position" that X is true or this is a receiver, etc. That's a clear APA violation.

3 Comments | Leave a comment

Michael Murray | December 27, 2020 12:54 PM | Reply

Thanks to David hardy for posting this as well as all his work on the blog. Also thanks to David Codrea for decades of pro-2A work. In my dictionary, one of the synonyms for "government" is "absurd". Another is "lawless".

KenM | January 8, 2021 4:34 AM | Reply

The real problem is that those "higher-ups" who regularly enforce (or attempt to enforce) the APA against every other federal agency, regularly defer to the "experts" at ATF when the spirits move them to create what amount to new laws against things that were not only legal the day before, but that were and are supposedly protected by the Second Amendment. Do you suppose they'd show the same deference if DEA (or ATF) were to decide that single-malt Scotch wasn't covered by the 21st, or that they could impose a $200/ounce transfer tax on it and require a lengthy background investigation before one could purchase it? Somehow I doubt it.

KenM | January 8, 2021 4:34 AM | Reply

The real problem is that those "higher-ups" who regularly enforce (or attempt to enforce) the APA against every other federal agency, regularly defer to the "experts" at ATF when the spirits move them to create what amount to new laws against things that were not only legal the day before, but that were and are supposedly protected by the Second Amendment. Do you suppose they'd show the same deference if DEA (or ATF) were to decide that single-malt Scotch wasn't covered by the 21st, or that they could impose a $200/ounce transfer tax on it and require a lengthy background investigation before one could purchase it? Somehow I doubt it.

Leave a comment