By Kevin D. Williamson
Tuesday, January 07, 2025
For about 200 years, the United States of America got
along without the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives. And, for
much of that history, most Americans lived under a firearms-regulation regime
that was relaxed or, in many places, effectively nonexistent. It is worth
considering that there is a parallel between the Second Amendment and the First
Amendment, with early firearms regulations often taking the same form as
permissible restrictions on speech and other communication: time, place, and
manner regulations. Americans had generally unrestricted rights to acquire
firearms but might have been prohibited from carrying them in certain urban
areas or restricted places (such as saloons) or while drunk, which was a real
consideration in the hard-drinking 19th century.
The progenitors of the ATF were all fundamentally tax
collectors and assistants to tax collectors. The earliest bureaucratic ancestor
of the modern ATF was the Revenue Laboratory established within the Treasury by
Congress in 1886, whose role was to examine alcoholic products (and suspected
alcoholic products) to ensure that all of the necessary duties had been paid
and that the products were otherwise in compliance with federal
regulations.
As we have seen in other instances—notably in the case
of the Affordable Care Act—when Congress cannot find a plausible constitutional
basis for some action its members wish to undertake, that action often is
repackaged as a tax, with the Supreme Court having long conceded congressional
taxing authority to be effectively unlimited and plenipotentiary. Before the
ratification of the 18th Amendment and the launching of Prohibition,
federal alcohol regulation had largely been enacted through tax policy, to such
an extent that in the early 20th century, as much as 40 percent of
federal revenue came from taxes on alcohol. As documentarian Lynn Novick (Ken
Burns’ partner in Prohibition) points out, it was the enactment of one
keystone progressive policy—the income tax—that enabled Prohibition, another
major progressive priority at the time.
A similar tax-as-regulation model has long been applied
to firearms: To this day, the federal permission slip one needs to legally
possess certain firearms (such as short-barreled rifles) or appliances (such as
acoustic suppressors) is a tax stamp, certifying that some small tax ($200 for
most items) has been paid. Of course, the revenue isn’t the point—ATF collects
only about $100 million a year in revenue from taxes authorized by the National
Firearms Act but has a budget of $1.4 billion. The point is creating regulatory
burdens to keep Americans from doing things certain people in the government
don’t want Americans to do without explicitly prohibiting those things, i.e.
treating the power to tax as a backdoor to the power to regulate where that
regulation might not otherwise pass constitutional muster.
I will give you a personal example: A couple of years
ago, I bought a .45-caliber handgun that I wanted to put a shoulder stock on.
Unless the barrel is at least 16 inches long, a handgun with a shoulder stock
on it is a “short-barreled rifle,” one of those special categories of highly
restricted weapons under the National Firearms Act. You can buy a firearm with
the stock already attached, in which case you fill out one kind of form, pay
the tax, and wait however many months (sometimes more than a year) for the ATF
to give you your tax stamp; or, if you prefer (because it often is faster) you
can buy the firearm and the stock separately and fill out a different ream of
paperwork—one that makes you a firearms “manufacturer” whose manufacturing
activity consists of fastening two screws one time—and pay your $200 and wait
however many months it takes. You also have to get yourself fingerprinted,
submit a passport-style photo, etc. I am a reasonably smart guy, and I didn’t
get my manufacturing paperwork right on the first try—ATF rejected it. (My
omission? I did not put “US” before the serial number.) If I fasten those
screws without my tax stamp, I am a federal felon. I also have a wife, three
jobs, and four children, and so doing the paperwork a second time has not risen
to the top of my agenda in the year or more since then. And that is how you use
regulation to enact a soft prohibition when you cannot enact a legal one.
ATF’s primitive regulatory ancestors were hatched at
Treasury and moved around from department to department over the years until
something like the modern agency was birthed within the IRS—as the Alcohol,
Tobacco, and Firearms Division of the Internal Revenue Service—with the passage
of the Gun Control Act of 1968. ATF became an independent bureau shortly
thereafter, on July 1, 1972. The Homeland Security Act of 2002 moved ATF from
Treasury back to Justice. And that may have had some real influence on how the
agency does its business, inasmuch as the Justice Department is generally
understood to be more political than Treasury, and more responsive to the
political needs of the president.
And that matters.
No comments:
Post a Comment