ATF Director Can't Define Assault Weapons: "I'm Not A Firearms Expert"

[TrappedinCalifornia]

I think this tells you all you need to know about Biden, his appointees, and firearms. It's simply a 43 second YouTube video. Yet it captures the essence of the Biden Administration's approach to firearms.

As Biden Pushes Ban, His ATF Director Can't Define Assault Weapons: "I'm Not A Firearms Expert"



10 years ago, CNN kinda sidestepped the same question in terms of the same 'struggle' and, 4 years ago, ReasonTV pointed out that it's all about "appearances" and that the definition is "arbitrary."



Well... If you appoint an ATF Director who proclaims he's not a 'firearms expert,' I guess appearances and arbitrary are all you've really got.

[Jeepergeo]

Well at least it didn't say they are....
+Black
+Appear in a lot of movies
+Are fun to shoot
+Are affordable to shyot
+Appeal to many Americans

[Tarmy]

We have experts that can talk about the velocity of firearms, and what damage the types of firearms would cause.

What the hell are his experts, in throwing firearms? Clowns.

[DougJ]

What he just said, very clearly, is that an “assault weapon” is a purely political definition having no basis in reality. It must remain a soft, squishy largely undefinable term so that it can manipulated as required to fit the needs of the political narrative.

[Dan_Eastvale]

It's a fully automatic military rifle or pistol

Not our semi auto versions

[MJB]

This guy is in over his head

[GetMeCoffee]

CalGuns Jeopardy

Me: Alex, I'll take "Strange Bedfellows" for $200

Alex: "Assault Weapons and Women"

Me: What are two things that Biden nominees and officials cannot define?

Ding! Ding! Ding!

[guntrust]

That's ok, Carolyn says it's the shoulder thing that goes up:

https://youtu.be/ospNRk2uM3U

[DaveInOroValley]

If you think that's funny watch the guy he wanted to head (that backed out) the FAA try and answer questions.

[JWHuey]

AFT director can't define "AWs"=not a gun expert

SCOTUS diversity hire can't define " woman"= not a biologist


ok then....

[TrappedinCalifornia]

This guy is in over his head

Not necessarily 'over his head' so much as the Left wants something, but it's something they aren't confident would float with the American people, in general, at this time or with the Legislature as it currently stands and definitely not with the current SCOTUS (which is part of why they're trying so hard to get Thomas), so they are afraid to publicly define it beyond what the States are being 'allowed' to do. Remember this guy?



Biden ATF pick David Chipman botches assault rifle definition at contentious hearing

Similar problem, except he was willing to stick his neck out a bit further than the current guy and it cost him the job.

In that vein, this piece talks about some of the other things going on with the Biden Administration (including more with the ATF) and you have to ask who is actually calling the plays these people are attempting to 'sell.'

ATF head "I'm no firearms expert" - can't define assault weapon but wants yours

Well, there we go. Add another dumb-as-a-log name to the Biden dumpster fire administration. We have a SCOTUS justice who can't define what a woman is, federal judge nominees who can?t answer simple law questions, an FAA nominee who had no idea what aviation was, a Secretary of Transportation who knows only that roads are racist, an Assistant Secretary for Health who thinks he?s a woman, the SecEd won?t define "woman"...

...and now the head of the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms can?t define what the very instrument of death IS that he is so desperate to ban...

[Rickybillegas]

To quote Javier Bardem in 'no country for old men' (in heavy Spanish accent):

"you don't know what your talking about!"

[Sputnik]

For the politicians “assault weapon” is ‘Whatever we say it is this week’. There is no definition beyond what ever gives them the most leverage and power over the proles. It is or has become a purely political term.

[Palmaris]

Continue https://www.foxnews.com/politics/atf...-says-congress

[TrappedinCalifornia]

Continue https://www.foxnews.com/politics/atf...-says-congress

You have to love how they attempt to shift the blame when they get 'boxed in' on something. From your link...

..."Again, that would be a decision for Congress to make, respectfully, as to make that definition. It is... There are numerous different legislative bodies that have taken up that question," Dettlebach said before being cut off.

"If we laid a weapon on the table, you could pretty much say, 'That falls in the category of assault weapon.'" Lee interjected during Dettlebach's testimony.

The ATF director did not budge, responding, "Respectfully, that is a decision that different legislative bodies have come up with different definitions for. It would be for the legislators to make that determined action as to how they would define it unless they were to delegate that authority to ATF."...

What I love is his oblique reference to "different legislative bodies" in the sense of how various states are now pushing through so-called "assault weapons" bans and that the 'answer' might be to abdicate their duty and turn it over to a bureaucratic agency; something SCOTUS has recently been taking issue with. As I've said elsewhere, this comes down whether SCOTUS sees all these machinations as sufficient motivation to 'get involved' or if SCOTUS 'punts' with an enumerated right the way they did with abortion and leaves it to the individual states.

As I also noted prior to the placement of some of the newest Justices, we know that Alito and Thomas are on 'our side' when it comes to these types of weapons; but, we're still not sure, with anything approaching true confidence, where Gorsuch, Kavanaugh, or Coney Barrett would ultimately come down. Would they be as comprehensive as people such as Scalia, Thomas, and Alito appear(ed) to be or would they seek a more 'nuanced' position in keeping with Roberts?

Here's footage from Forbe's posted yesterday on YouTube...