There are two sets of federal laws, broadly speaking, that infringe
your rights as Americans. The first is the National Firearms Act from
1934 (“NFA”). As it was originally enacted, it was a scheme by Congress
to tax certain firearms at a tax level so high that most Americans
would simply not acquire the firearm (machinegun, short barrel firearms,
suppressors) because of the tax. The other is the 1968 Gun Control Act
(“GCA”). Of course, they were not really controlling guns, they were
controlling us with that one.
While the GCA created the requirement of a federal firearms license
for dealers and manufacturers, it also created classifications of people
who according to the federal government at the time (as opposed to when
the 2nd Amendment came into existence) should be denied the free
exercise of a constitutional right.
It is the federal
government’s potentially unconstitutional regulation of federal firearms
dealers and manufacturers under the GCA that now creates perhaps one of
the greatest risks to your 2nd Amendment rights and the 2nd Amendment
“supply chain” that the PEOPLE of this nation have ever seen. When I
say “federal government” I want to be clear that I am talking about
those with decision making authority in Washington. Many of the
employees of the federal or even state governments are very pro-2nd
Amendment and they are not the ones who make policy.
After less than 15 years of existence, there were substantial
complaints from the public across the nation that the federal government
was seriously misusing the GCA in ways that Congress never intended.
These complaints were so broad and loud that by the early 1980s Congress
was conducting hearings and investigations into the matter.
In a February 1982 report by a Senate subcommittee, the subcommittee
stated that approximately 75 percent of ATF prosecutions “were aimed at
ordinary citizens who had neither criminal intent nor knowledge, but
were enticed by agents into unknowing technical violations.” It
suggested that reform of federal firearms law “would enhance vital
protection of constitutional and civil liberties of those Americans who
choose to exercise their Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms.”
After several years, these Congressional investigations led to
the passage of The Firearm Owners Protection Act of 1986 (FOPA). That
law was intended by Congress to address the abuses noted in the 1982
Senate Judiciary Subcommittee report. Among the reforms were the
reopening of interstate sales of long guns on a limited basis,
legalization of ammunition shipments through the U.S. Postal Service,
removal of the requirement for record keeping on sales of
non-armor-piercing ammunition, and federal protection of transportation
of firearms through states where possession of those firearms would
otherwise be illegal.
Another important provision of the FOPA
was the including of language in 18 USC § 923 to make clear
Congressional intent that a federal firearms dealer should not have his
or her license revoked for mere technical violations of the law. At
that time, Congress amended § 923 to include a “willfulness” requirement
as a condition to license revocation. As it presently exists 18 USC §
923(e) provides that the Attorney General “may, after notice and
opportunity for hearing, revoke any license issued under this section if
the holder of such license has willfully violated any provision of this
chapter or any rule or regulation prescribed by the Attorney General under this chapter….”
It did not take long for the federal government and courts to
interpret willfulness in ways that returned to the revocation of
licensees for technical violations. What changed slightly was the
process by which ATF convinced courts to find willfulness to include
“repeat violations of a known legal duty” such as completing an ATF Form
4473 with no errors at all.
In
order to teach its industry operations inspectors how to conduct these
annual “compliance” investigations and to document errors so that repeat
errors could be used for revocations, ATF generated policies that are
described as “adverse action” policies. Generally, the current version
of the adverse action policy is withheld by ATF from Freedom of
Information Act requests but the expired versions are sometimes
available. Here is an example of an expired policy that has been
revised since Joe Biden announced his directive to federal agencies to
put “rogue dealers” out of business with new “zero tolerance”
interpretations.
The importance of knowing what is in even an expired adverse
action policy is that it shows how far ATF’s policy makers have moved
intentionally away from the slap on the wrist that was contained in the
1986 FOPA. Rather than truly limiting the license revocations to those
who get and use federal licensing for serious criminal facilitation
such as trafficking guns to Mexico (oh wait, was that the Obama era “Fast and Furious” scandal?)
At present, under the new Biden era “zero tolerance” agenda, some
reports indicate that ATF license revocation activities are up 500%
over prior agency revocation data. This number must be viewed as an
understatement because there are plenty of instances where FFL’s are
essentially told by ATF that they should surrender their license
voluntarily rather than proceed to revocation or even potential criminal
referrals.
There is no doubt that President Biden would love
to see Congress pass massive new gun control measures. Right now, the
votes don’t exist in Congress largely because of the Senate. But that
could change – suddenly just as some feel the votes changed “suddenly”
in the 2020 elections.
So, what do we see of Congress does not
enact new laws to control civilian ownership of firearms? We see what
we have seen. We see efforts by the administration with absolutely no
Congressional activity to “redefine” statutory phrases by reversing
prior regulatory interpretations (bump stocks, triggers, AR pistols,
etc.) and we see more aggressive steps taken to reduce the number of
federally licensed dealers and manufacturers. Biden and his federal
administration are intentionally and actively attacking the 2nd
Amendment not be legislative action, not by amending the constitution
but by constricting the 2nd Amendment Supply Chain. What good will the
2nd Amendment be when there is no one making or selling firearms? Are
you ready to make your own firearms and ammunition. 
