Yesterday, I reported on the fact that the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (BATFE) were backpedaling on the potential ban of M855 ammunition, claiming a "publishing error." Today, ATF fell back amid a swell of American patriotism.
An unprecedented response to the proposed ban led ATF to tweet the following:
— ATF HQ (@ATFHQ) March 10, 2015
According to a press release by the ATF:
Although ATF endeavored to create a proposal that reflected a good faith interpretation of the law and balanced the interests of law enforcement, industry, and sportsmen, the vast majority of the comments received to date are critical of the framework, and include issues that deserve further study. Accordingly, ATF will not at this time seek to issue a final framework. After the close of the comment period, ATF will process the comments received, further evaluate the issues raised therein, and provide additional open and transparent process (for example, through additional proposals and opportunities for comment) before proceeding with any framework.
The problem is that their claims of "interpretation of the law" are invalid simply because it doesn't take a rocket scientist to understand what "shall not be infringed" means. For those who don't know, that's the second part of the Second Amendment, which gives absolutely not authority to the federal government to regulate or restrict arms or ammunition. There is nothing hard to interpret here.
However, the ATF did acknowledge that though the comment period regarding the ammo ban closes on Monday, March 16, 2015, they have already received over 80,000 comments. Those comments will be made public, according to the ATF, "as soon as practicable."
The National Rifle Association President Wayne LaPierre said, "Today's announcement proves what we have said all along -- this was 100% political. Obama failed to pass gun control through Congress, so he tried impose his political agenda through executive fiat."
House Judiciary Chairman Bob Goodlatte (R-VA) issued the following statement:
"After much pressure from a large, bipartisan majority in the House of Representatives, I am pleased that the Obama Administration has abandoned its attack on the Second Amendment. Congress will continue to steadfastly protect the constitutional rights of law-abiding citizens and it is entirely inappropriate for President Obama to stretch his regulatory authority to implement partisan policies that Congress has refused to enact. Such an abuse of power would impact many law-abiding gun owners and restrict the American people's ability to legally and responsibly exercise their Second Amendment rights. I and other members of the House Judiciary Committee will continue to keep a watchful eye on the Obama Administration so that we protect Americans' constitutional rights. We cannot allow the President of the United States to infringe upon the Second Amendment rights afforded to all Americans."
Additionally, Rep. John Culberson, Texas Republican and chairman of the appropriations subcommittee that oversees the ATF, said the agency “made the right call by reversing course on a misguided plan that would have trampled on Americans’ Second Amendment rights.”
He then fell flat on his face with his next comment. “This is an example of how regulators and Congress should work together. All of us in Texas love law enforcement and want to help ATF officers stop gun smugglers, drug smugglers and other criminals — not law-abiding American sportsmen who use this ammo every day for target practice, shooting competitions and hunting.”
So what's wrong with any of this? I'll tell you. It isn't just Barack Obama infringing upon the Second Amendment.
First, if Rep. Goodlatte believes for one second that the Obama administration has "abandoned its attack on the Second Amendment," then he is either naïve or purposefully stupid. Barack Obama once told John R. Lott Jr., as they attended the University of Chicago, "I don't believe people should be able to own guns."
Second, as I pointed out, Rep. Goodlatte claimed pretended legislation known as the Law Enforcement Officers Protection Act (LEOPA) of 1986 in order to keep the ATF under control with their current attempt to ban ammunition. What Goodlatte should have done was reference what is supreme to LEOPA and that is the Second Amendment. Congress also has absolutely no authority to regulate or restrict arms or ammunition. They are included in the Second Amendment's restriction on the federal government.
Finally, in addressing Rep. Culberson, this is not an example of how "regulators and Congress work together." As I previously stated, Congress has been given no authority in this area. Therefore, the executive branch has been given no authority in this area. It anything, it's an example of the backlash of the American people's voices against tyranny.
In essence, not only the Second Amendment, but every part of the US Constitution is not a restriction on the people, but rather a binding of the federal government, giving it only limited amounts of authority to exercise on behalf of the people.
I am glad to hear the ATF received such a response, despite the fact that they were seeking to implement a ban on ammunition that has resulted in not one police officer being shot with. I will be even happier to hear that Congress understands that it has no more authority to write such dubious "laws" as LEOPA or any other law that infringes upon the people's ability to keep and bear arms in defense of a free state than the ATF has to impose a ban on any arms or ammunition.
As a final note, I wholeheartdely agree with Gun Owners of America, who issued a statement saying, "If anyone needed any more proof that [the ATF] has become a politicized repository of liberal anti-gun hacks, your proposed effort to effectively ban AR-15's by illegally banning AR-15 ammunition has cleared up any doubt.”Don't forget to Like Freedom Outpost on Facebook, Google Plus, & Twitter. You can also get Freedom Outpost delivered to your Amazon Kindle device here.