ATF Director’s Resignation Shows That Law Enforcement and and Public Safety Were Never His Agendas

It’s really just good news to report that Joe Biden’s director of the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives, Steven Dettelbach, has announced his resignation. The bad news only comes into play for President-elect Donald Trump because he will be denied the pleasure of firing the most political ATF director we’ve ever seen.

Dettelbach, you will recall, wasn’t Biden’s first choice to head the ATF.  That “honor” went to former ATF-employee David Chipman, who went from being an ATF field agent with a possibly questionable background to a shill for anti-gun extremists. As opposition to Chipman mounted, his nomination failed. Spectacularly. He then mounted a grievance campaign, and returned to being paid by anti-gunners to spout his anti-gun nonsense.

After Chipman came Dettelbach, a slightly less controversial but equally anti-gun extremist. Perhaps the only positive aspect of the Dettelbach nomination was it brought forth more whining from Chipman.

Dettelbach was ultimately confirmed, and under his “leadership,” the ATF did everything it could to execute the Biden agenda of eviscerating the Second Amendment. It also faced an incredible number of legal challenges to rules the agency implemented without corresponding legislative mandates from Congress.

As a refresher on how our government is supposed to work, Congress passes laws, and if the president signs them, his executive branch—under which ATF operates—implements the laws. The key word here is “implements,” not “re-writes,” as in “re-writes to promote a political agenda that Congress didn’t consider or intend.”

Biden’s ATF, however, took it upon itself to reinterpret and rewrite a number of regulations in spite of the fact that Congress had, in every case but one, not changed the statutes under which those regulations had operated.

For example, there’s the new rule regarding pistol stabilizing braces. These firearm accessories, developed, in part, to help disabled veterans handle certain firearms more safely and with more accuracy, have been around for decades. Since 2012, ATF had recognized that stabilizing braces serve a legitimate function and the inclusion of a stabilizing brace on a pistol or other firearm doesn’t automatically subject that firearm to the provisions of the National Firearms Act.

In 2021, however, the agency began the process of reinterpreting existing law to treat brace-equipped pistols the same as short-barreled rifles and fully automatic firearms, rendering them subject to NFA regulations that require enhanced screening of those who own such items, as well as registration, additional fees (taxes), and other requirements.

The rule has been challenged as unauthorized and has faced a number of legal defeats.

Then there’s the “frame or receiver” rule, which changed decades of ATF regulations regarding the legal definition of a firearm, again without any change to the federal law under which those regulations operated. We pointed out ATF intended to go beyond what was spelled out in federal law when a draft of the proposed rule was leaked. We also submitted detailed comments in opposition to the proposal when it was formally published.

This rule is also facing legal challenges and has been taken up by the Supreme Court.

Then there’s team Biden/Dettelbach circumventing Congress by creatively misinterpreting the Bipartisan Safer Communities Act to create a new rule that controls when individuals engage in sufficient commerce in firearms so as to need to be licensed under federal law as a Federal Firearms Licensee. Under the rule, Biden’s ATF went well beyond statutory authority to fabricate presumptions of when an individual needs to be an FFL. The rule even hedges its bets against its own legality by claiming it’s not meant to apply in criminal proceedings (the most common enforcement actions against unlicensed dealers).

This was an attempt to move the needle on Biden’s desire to implement “universal” background checks, even though the very agency that created this rule has also released data undermining the alleged efficacy of “universal” background checks to address crime involving firearms.

Twenty-six states filed suits challenging the rule, as did NRA.

Besides creatively reimagining federal firearm laws, ATF has faced scrutiny over how it has operated under Dettelbach, including a controversial operation in Arkansas the led to the death of the subject being investigated. There were also questions asked of Dettelbach regarding an alleged ATF-linked Mexico gun trafficking scheme, raising the specter of the Obama-Biden administration’s Operation Fast and Furious scandal.

Dettelbach, apparently fancying himself as media-friendly, even took to television to push his anti-gun ATF propaganda. The results were…cringe-inducing.

The fact that Dettelbach has quit before he could be fired is just the final nail in the coffin of one of the most blatantly anti-gun political appointees of the Biden administration. His resignation all but confirms his tenure had little to do with heading an agency ostensibly dedicated to public safety by targeting the most dangerous firearm-related crimes and criminals. Otherwise, why quit? If he were as dedicated to professional law enforcement as he claimed, one would think he would stay on, make his case with Trump, then let the chips fall where they may.

On the other hand, if his goal and mandate were to target and harass law-abiding gun owners as well as firearm manufacturers and dealers, it would make sense that he would leave before Trump took office. There’s certainly no future in that line of business under the Trump-Vance administration.

While it’s a shame that President-elect Trump won’t have the satisfaction of firing someone who should never have been nominated to run the ATF, it’s still good that he’ll be gone. He won’t be missed, but we look forward to seeing who will be appointed to replace him.