The Director of the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives (ATF) said he supports banning certain firearms, while noting that such a measure would have to be approved by Congress.
He denied that the ATF bore any responsibility for the ongoing dispute over pistol braces.
“I’m a member of the administration; I agree with the president, [and] the attorney general. It will be up to Congress, of course, as the president has said, to decide whether to act on (a weapons ban),” said ATF Director Steven Dettelbach during an interview with The Washington Post on April 3.
The question of an “assault weapons” ban arose during a discussion about violent crime. Post reporter Leigh Ann Caldwell showed an animation illustrating a bullet’s effect on a human body. She also showed a video in which Alfred Lyons, 70, a minister from Jackson, Mississippi, explained why he purchased an AR-15 rifle.
Lyons claims he is seeing a resurgence of racist extremism similar to what he saw before the Civil Rights movement. He decided to buy an AR-15 because of its reputation as a dependable weapon.
“It would be a good thing to be prepared to defend my community,” Lyons said. “You fight fire with fire.”
Dettelbach said it is important to remember that the Second Amendment protects the people’s right to defend themselves. Still, he said it is also important to remember that there are agencies like the ATF to defend citizens.
“Hopefully, we can live in a country where law enforcement and the greater community can protect people from violence and not just leave them to their own devices to protect themselves,” he said.
According to Dettelbach, any gun ban would have to come from Congress. Although he said, the ATF would be willing to provide any information or technical expertise needed.
“It is Congress who will decide whether to take that issue up,” he said.
Caldwell also pointed out that Dettelbach is the first Senate-confirmed ATF director since 2015. She said this delay was seen by many as an ongoing attempt by Congressional Republicans to weaken the agency. She asked how this apparent lack of support would put any pressure on the ATF.
Dettelbach said it is all part of the ongoing debate on guns and the Second Amendment. He said the ATF would stay focused on its primary mission.
“Our job is to take what comes of that debate and put it to use,” he said. “We are not going to be pressured by anybody on any side of the debate.”
Caldwell asked Dettelbach if the ATF would play any role in quelling potential violence related to the criminal proceedings involving former President Donald Trump. She pointed out that New York police are gearing up for the possibility of violent demonstrations.
He said ATF has no official role at this time. But would assist in any investigations.
“We have to live in a country of laws where people respect the law and don’t engage in violent activities because they disagree with something that’s going on,” he said.
During the discussion of violent crime, pistol braces came up. A recent rule promulgated by the ATF would effectively ban the devices introduced in 2012 to help disabled shooters fire large-format pistols that use rifle-caliber ammunition.
The U.S. Department of Justice announced on Jan. 13, 2023, its final rule to “Address Stabilizing Braces, Accessories Used to Convert Pistols into Short-Barreled Rifles.” Under the rule, Owners of the devices have until the end of May to destroy them, turn them in, or register them with the government.
The ATF and pistol brace owners have been going back and forth over the devices for years as ATF issued statements saying the braces did not make the pistols into short-barreled rifles before deciding that they do. Short-barreled rifles are banned under the National Firearms Act of 1934, which ATF is tasked with enforcing.
The rule is now the subject of a wide variety of lawsuits. Congressmen and Second Amendment rights organizations are calling for the defunding or dissolution of the ATF, and the up to 4 million pistol brace owners are wondering where they stand.
Dettelbach did not address the ATF’s role in the debate saying that Congress passed the National Firearms Act, so ATF must enforce it.
“Some people said, ‘Well, it’s been confusing in the past about whether National Firearms Act covered this because ATF had said some things,” Dettelbach said. “I don’t have to get into the history of that. This is under litigation, so I am limited in what I can say,” Dettelbach said.
“We’re doing our best to implement the laws as Congress has passed them.”
