When federal officials take action of any kind, questions about the relative wisdom of said action should come second.
Indeed, a more fundamental question precedes it: Namely, where did the federal government get the power in the first place?
On Tuesday, according to The Washington Times, Republican Reps. Eric Burlison of Missouri and Lauren Boebert of Colorado introduced legislation that would abolish the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives, and the Times also reported that Burlison will introduce legislation that would repeal the 1934 National Firearms Act, which, though much amended, served as the basis for a 1986 federal ban on the possession of most machine guns by private citizens.
“If this agency cannot uphold its duty to serve the people within the framework of the Constitution, it has no place in our government,” Burlison said of the ATF.
Boebert agreed, saying that she cannot “imagine under any circumstance or administration where the ATF serves as an ally to the Second Amendment and law-abiding firearm owners across America,” and that in that case, the “ATF should be abolished before they eventually abolish our Second Amendment.”
Meanwhile, on the social media platform X Wednesday, Burlison amplified his case for abolishing the ATF.
The notorious agency, he said, “uses its unelected deep state power to go after law-abiding citizens.”
The ATF is a disastrous agency that uses its unelected deep state power to go after law-abiding citizens.
It should absolutely be abolished. My bill, the Abolish the ATF Act, does just that. pic.twitter.com/dWt7ZWAV6U
— Rep. Eric Burlison (@RepEricBurlison) January 8, 2025
Would you support abolishing the ATF?
Yes: 95% (437 Votes)
No: 5% (21 Votes)
Likewise, a clip posted to X on Monday featured highlights from one of Boebert’s speeches on the ATF in the last Congress.
“We don’t trust the ATF because of their overreaching actions,” she said.
🚨 NEW: Congresswoman Lauren Boebert has filed legislation to abolish the ATF.
Do you support this?
Boebert railed against the ATF in the last Congress, saying the agency goes way too far in “rulemaking” authorities.
“We don’t trust the ATF because of their overreaching… pic.twitter.com/SQcjxOlolh
— Eric Daugherty (@EricLDaugh) January 6, 2025
The lawmakers’ Abolish the ATF Act got more attention on X than Burlison’s proposed repeal of the NFA.
The reverse, however, might have been more appropriate.
In 1934, the NFA imposed a $200 tax on the making and transfer of certain firearms, including machine guns. The NFA also added registration requirements deemed unconstitutional by the Supreme Court in 1968.
Nonetheless, thanks in part to subsequent legislation, including the 1968 Gun Control Act, the NFA survived.
Then, in the Orwellian-sounding Firearms Owners’ Protection Act of 1986, Congress prohibited the possession of nearly all machine guns. That prohibition, of course, did not apply to agents of the federal government, including federal law enforcement.
In short, one wonders if the GOP-controlled Congress would have the courage to repeal the NFA. After all, FOPA’s machine-gun ban amounted to an amendment of the GCA.
Thus, repealing the 1934 law would remove the statutory foundation for subsequent federal gun-control legislation.
The Second Amendment, of course, requires that “the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.”
As it stands, however, the federal government holds a near-monopoly on the threat of lethal violence.
How did it acquire that monopoly? And should it remain in place?
Whether or not congressional Republicans repeal the NFA — the ATF seems far more likely to go, and good riddance to it if it does — the question of where the federal government derives the authority behind its machine-gun monopoly deserves serious consideration.
Advertise with The Western Journal and reach millions of highly engaged readers, while supporting our work. Advertise Today.
