In June of 2016, the ATF announced that nitrocellulose, including nitrocellulose wetted with water or alcohol, would be considered a high explosive. This change in regulation was simply announced in the June ATF EXPLOSIVES Industry Newsletter, without a comment period or any previous consideration.
This change had a potentially devastating effect on ammunition manufacturers and manufacturers of smokeless gunpowder. If the ruling was upheld, it would have required enormous changes in gunpowder manufacture, making ammunition significantly more expensive, and likely halting the manufacture of smokeless gunpowder for a considerable period while changes to existing procedures were worked out, tested, and applied to the manufacturing process.
Astute people in the industry noticed and started to sound the alarm. It is not surprising that people are on the edge of alarm during the final months of the Obama administration, as the administration has shown an alarming tendency to ignore both Congress and the courts.
The ATF sought to put the issue to rest yesterday , 31 August. It issued an update stating that the status of previously authorized industry oractices will not be affected for some period. From the update:
Subsequent contact from industry members who import, transport, store or employ wetted Nitrocellulose in the production of ammunition, however, has brought to our attention that were not fully addressed in the Newsletter and require further consultation and consideration with the industry. Accordingly, ATF has and will conduct further industry outreach concerning wetted Nitrocellulose. In the interim, previously authorized industry practices concerning wetted Nitrocellulose will not be affected.This appears to have been an oversight on the part of the ATF; someone likely made a mistake, not knowing the consequences of their actions. It will probably be corrected.
This shows the danger in so much power being concentrated in the executive branch. A shutdown of an entire industry could happen simply because a bureaucrat decided to add one chemical to a list of others, without knowing the consequences, and not following procedure on the requirement for public input on the change of regulations.
ATF has not admitted that they overstepped their regulatory power; they have only admitted that they need to consult with the industry and take them into consideration.
But what other effects might there be that they or we do not know? Regulators cannot know all; that is one of the reasons for public input. It is entirely possible that small manufacturers or individuals will be significantly effected by this unanticipated regulatory change.
It is positive that ATF responded to industry pressure in this regard. But what if they had not? Congress has shown little inclination to rein in the Obama administration; a court case could be bottled up for months or years, as has happened with the immigration case.
Congress should make clear the power of the ATF is limited, and any change must be subject to public oversight and comment.
©2016 by Dean Weingarten: Permission to share is granted when this notice is included.
Link to Gun Watch
I study the constitution and frankly I can not find any authority for ATF to exist. All laws must originate in congress and congress has no authority to delegate the power to make laws to an agency it has created. congress must make the regulations and any changes to those regulations that any agency must work with or enforce. The American people must stand up to government over reach. the oath of office requires strict compliance with our constitution. ATF is an agency designed to be an infringement on our second amendment rights. the mandate in the constitution is shall not be infringed. any law or act created by congress concerning issues of the second amendment are an infringement. there is nothing in the presidential oath of office that permits any president to selectively enforce any law. the law must be enforced as written until congress changes that law. Any infringement on our bill of Rights is unconstitutional. the entire purpose of the bill of rights was to prevent government from touching those rights. Congress can not create an agency to do the infringing for congress. Obama is selectively enforcing immigration law, that is not permitted by the limitations in our constitution and his oath of office. we must demand compliance or replace the government as permitted in the constitution. there is no authority to manipulate what the constitution says. and only the words physical written can be considered Only the words written are enforceable. No substitution of words or interpretations are permitted. a contract is a contract. All parties to a contract must agree to any changes that is why we have the amendment process. All laws written by congress must comply with the limitations placed on government by the constitution. any laws that violate these mandates are void without effect or the authority to be enforced. My constitution rant of the day. I am sick of the government failure to comply with the written words of the constitution and the rampant corruption of our constitution. Aerican must stand up and demand compliance.
ReplyDeleteAnytime progressives/leftists gain a little power they struggle to expand it to gain absolute power, and the Constitution is their biggest roadblock.
ReplyDeleteIt really is stupid for ATF to take this course. every kitchen cabinet or bathroom has the necessary components to make dangerous explosives. How handy is gasoline, one gallon of gas has the explosive power of 14 sticks of dynamite, would you believe that Karo syrup is an ingredient or moth balls in making stove top C-3? It does not take a masters degree in chemistry to make explosives. Anyone can make black powder and it is one of the most true explosives there is, it has no burn rate like smokeless powders do. Foo gas made with gasoline and wheat flour. How many door nobs work for ATF?
ReplyDeleteUnderstand what the BATF is , and is not. Created by administrative fiat - Treasury Order Number 120-01 in 1972 June by Secretary of Treasury,with no authority to do so.
ReplyDeleteABOLISH this Agency.
See: BATF - IRS Criminal Fraud .
http://www.usa-the-republic.com/revenue/BATF-IRS%20Criminal%20Report.html
We can talk about these issues all day long, the problem is that talk is not action especially when no one in government is listening. violating the oath off office if acting against the constitution or the people is the primary reason to impeach government personnel. when government fails to clean its own house it is the duty of we the people to right the course of government. It is our right and our duty as sovereign citizens to correct the government at what ever the cost. Every administration is temporary. we can not allow one administration to destroy our nation. we have had a string of corrupt administrations and we are paying the price for our failure to act. Rise up America and defend our constitution.
ReplyDeleteAny President can form his own cabinet, and as such could have an ATF as part of it. However, it would have no more authority than the Executive branch itself has - meaning it has NO power of "rule-making" because that is LAW MAKING, which of course is reserved exclusively to the Legislature.
ReplyDeleteThe ATF can exist, but it cannot act autonomously as it does today.
Hamstringing it to only a entity of enforcing what the Congress lays out in law would be almost the same as abolishing it as we know it.
Better, yet, President Trump could simply NOT FORM the ATF at all as part of HIS Cabinet, and One Hundred days after he takes office, it becomes a defunct Agency/Bureau without any power to DO anything about anyone anywhere. President Trump could simply task the Marshals with and the FBI with the things he wants done - LE wise.
Yes, it really is that simple.
And so it should be.
Actually the constitution spells out very specifically what the make up of the presidents cabinet is. there is no amendment changing that limitation. Most if not all of the agencies created by congress or a president are in fact unconstitutional. any amendments added to the constitution do not have the legal wording to change the constitutional limitations of what is in the presidents cabinet. the fact is it must state specifically that it is an amendment to change the structure of the cabinet or it is not a legal amendment. remember only the written words are enforceable. they created the secretary of education but they did not amend the wording to change the make up of the cabinet. it is very technical law but it is law. the income tax and the federal reserve have the same problem.
ReplyDelete