Speech Transcript from Brandon Herrera's: "I Testified Against the ATF"

The Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms was formed about 50 years ago in 1972. It wasn't originally intended to be a law enforcement or, for that matter, a law interpretation agency of the federal government. Believe it or not, it was founded as a split off from the Treasury Department. It was formed as a sort of a county division tasked with processing taxes paid on exactly what the name says: Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms, particularly taxes for compliance with things like the 1968 Gun Control Act and eventually the National Firearms Act.

Much like many other divisions of the federal government, it did not take long for the ATF to grow and operate well past its original purpose. Less than 20 years after it was founded, we had the Ruby Ridge standoff with armed members of the ATF and FBI in 1990, followed closely by the Waco Siege in 1993, both of which resulted in high-profile civilian casualties by the ATF. This was a high-water mark for the ATF in terms of being like a violent task force of sorts, as it was quickly determined that their actions were not only morally and legally questionable but also a bad look for public perception.

This was not the end of the expansion of the ATF's duties, however. The modern tactic that the ATF is exercising is expanding definitions of previously passed laws to include new things not covered in said laws. You see, the ATF is not a legislative body. It is not Congress, and it cannot make new laws. But in changing or expanding the definition of laws already passed by Congress, they are essentially legislating.

You see, even though Congress recently tried to reverse the ATF's ban on stabilizing pistol braces, a bill that failed, the ATF did not need any such bill to implement the ban on them in the first place. They simply made a decision to redefine them as SBRs, or short-barreled rifles, and therefore regulated by the NFA, violations of which are punishable by 10 years in prison. How the hell can repealing a ban on something require a literal act of Congress, yet the ban itself did not require a bill to go before Congress in the first place?

Another way the ATF has been expanding its authority is by targeting legal Federal Firearms License holders, or FFLs, such as gun stores, gun manufacturers, and so on. Now, the ATF is permitted to perform audits on FFLs to ensure compliance. They supposedly want to make sure that the FFL holder is not violating the law and is keeping the proper paperwork. However, in the past few years, this has been weaponized against FFLs and the gun industry as a whole as a way of shutting down otherwise legally compliant FFLs.

What was originally intended to be a measure to stop rogue gun dealers from operating outside of the law has now, under the Biden administration, become a tool for federal agents at the request of their superiors in D.C. to shut down gun stores and manufacturers for simple clerical errors in paperwork. Revocations of FFLs are up drastically as Biden's new zero-tolerance rule has caused many innocent gun stores to close, guilty of only minor paperwork errors on forms attempting to comply with the law, as we’ve heard here today.

I'm personally also an FFL, and I have little doubt that because I'm here willing to talk to you about this publicly, I can expect my audit to be coming shortly. But as FFLs, we shouldn't have to be worried about taking political stances against the ATF for fear of targeted backlash. As gun owners, we shouldn't have to worry about new gun laws that have the ability to turn law-abiding citizens into felons, especially without an act of Congress. That is why the ATF has to be reined in from the top, not only for the sake of gun owners across the country but also to set a precedent and remind other government entities that they are not allowed to play by their own rules.